CONTENTS
Friday, June 2, 1995
Bill C-75. Report stage (without amendment) 13163
Motion for concurrence 13163
(Motion agreed to.) 13163
Motion for third reading 13163
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 13164
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 13173
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 13174
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 13174
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 13175
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 13175
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 13175
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 13178
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 13178
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 13182
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 13183
Bill C-329. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 13188
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 13189
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 13189
Bill C-75. Consideration resumed of motion for third reading 13190
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 13192
Bill C-81. Motion for second reading 13192
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported and concurred in
by unanimous consent.) 13196
Motion for third reading 13196
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 13196
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 13196
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 13200
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 13202
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 13203
13163
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, June 2, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-75, an act
to amend the Farm Improvement and Marketing Co-Operatives
Loans Act, as reported (without amendment) from the
committee.
Hon. Allan Rock (for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Rock (for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food)
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as members
prepare to give Bill C-75, an act to amend the Farm
Improvement and Marketing Co-Operatives Loans Act, or as we
refer to it in the abbreviated form of FIMCLA, consideration for
third reading, I would like to review some of the reasons we are
anxious to have the bill passed into law as soon as possible.
FIMCLA is designed to increase the availability of credit on
reasonable terms to farmers and farmer owned co-operatives.
Farmers can borrow up to $250,000 to invest in new technology
and equipment or for a wide range of farm improvement
projects. Farmer owned co-operatives can get loans up to $3
million to invest in facilities to add value to their farm products,
for example the washing or packing plants for vegetables, fruit
juice plants or many other applications.
These loans to co-ops must be approved by the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food. This is the only national loan
guarantee program that can be accessed by farmers across
Canada. Like other business sectors, the farm economy goes
through cycles and changing credit conditions. Loan guarantees
are an important tool that governments can use to ensure that
credit is readily available to viable farm enterprises throughout
the business cycle.
Bill C-75 will change only one clause in the act. That is the
raising of the total amount of loans which can be guaranteed
under FIMCLA over a five-year period of time from $1.5 billion
to $3 billion. If this amendment is not passed we will soon reach
the loan cap and we will have to suspend the program possibly
for as long as two years. We have almost reached the point of
having to suspend the program already it is so successful.
The Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food should give
lenders 60 days notice if it will not be able to guarantee loans
under the program. Since we expect to reach the present
guarantee limit of $1.5 billion by the end of July, it is imperative
that the legislation be passed as quickly as possible. Clearly, we
do not want to reach the point of having to suspend the program.
The Farm Improvement and Co-Operatives Loans Act
program is very popular. It is becoming more so every year.
Over the last five years the number of loans registered under the
program has more than tripled, from about 4,890 loans in the
year 1990-91 to over 18,000 loans in the year 1994-95. The
value of those loans has climbed from just under $82 million in
the year 1990-91 to $515 million of loans that have been
guaranteed in the year 1994-95.
We expect the activity for this year to reach $550 million.
That will bring the five-year aggregate to the $1.5 billion level.
With the current level of approvals, it should stay there for the
next few years. At that level, a $3 billion cap will allow us to
continue offering the program.
We attribute the increased loan activity to a number of
factors: sustained lower interest rates and an improved farm
debt situation, not as improved as we would like to see it but it
certainly has improved from where it was in the past; greater
participation by independent rural lenders; improved marketing
of the program; and increased competition between lending
institutions.
I would like to expand for a moment on the point about
increased participation of rural lenders. In the early 1990s the
13164
department began to encourage credit unions and caisses
populaires to make the program more available to their
customers. This has resulted in the addition of about 600 new
designated lenders across the country. Besides adding more
outlets for getting FIMCLA loans, this marketing change has
also generated more competition between institutions for loans,
all to the benefit of the borrowers, being the co-ops and the
farmers themselves.
(1010 )
I said that the program had become more popular recently.
Quebec and Alberta are the sources of most of the new growth.
In Quebec we can thank the caisses populaires Desjardins. That
movement has become a major participant. We can credit it for
the rapid growth of loans in Quebec under FIMCLA. Quebec has
now the third highest number of loans.
Just ahead of Quebec is Alberta which has the second highest
number of loans. In that province the government owned Alberta
Treasury Branches has become a significant lender under
FIMCLA Saskatchewan. However, it is still the biggest user of
the program. In 1994-95 that province accounted for roughly
half of all the registered loans.
FIMCLA has proven to be a very inexpensive way for the
government to support the agri-food sector. Over 30 years, costs
have averaged over just $1 million a year, roughly 1 per cent of
annual loans. Over the past three years the program has returned
$6.3 million to the consolidated revenue fund.
In order to reduce the program costs even further, we will be
increasing the registration fee by a small amount, one quarter of
1 per cent. This will raise the average registration fee by $67. It
will now become $202 on average. Still, we must agree it is a
very reasonable cost to provide such a guarantee and program to
the co-operative movement and to the primary producers, the
Canadian farmers. Had this fee level been in place over the past
30 years, net costs would have averaged $434,000 a year instead
of $1 million.
To allay the concerns that the government's 95 per cent
guarantee is actually a subsidy to lenders, I should point out that
the net losses under FIMCLA have historically been lower than
the losses lenders have incurred on loans guaranteed outside the
program. We are certainly proud in the agri-food industry that
those losses are at less than 1 per cent. That is a tremendous
record and one which the agri-food industry should be and is
proud of.
The program and the amendments have the support of the
major farm groups and the commercial lenders across Canada. I
urge members on both sides of the House to support quick
passage of Bill C-75 so that there is no disruption in the program
for the agri-food industry in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise this morning to participate in the debate
on Bill C-75 at third reading.
As we said earlier, the purpose of the only amendment to the
Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act is to
double the number of loans guaranteed under this act.
As the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food explained so well, this change simply increases
the limit of guarantees on loans made by banking institutions.
The current limit is $1.5 billion. Bill C-75 would increase this
limit to $3 billion.
This increase is said to be in line with the increased needs of
many farmers and would facilitate access to financing.
Our position on Bill C-75 has not changed. To benefit our
farmers and make their lives easier, we in the Bloc Quebecois
will support the amendment proposed by Bill C-75. We
therefore endorse raising the limit from $1.5 billion to $3
billion.
However, I wish to point out that, although we support Bill
C-75 for our farmers' sake, this short term solution is not the
one favoured by the Bloc Quebecois.
(1015)
In the current federalist context, the provinces face the
``mission impossible'' of obtaining even a minimal degree of
autonomy from the federal government, which is trying to take
one power after another away from the provinces through its
spending power. That is why we must support this temporary
solution, to allow the government to go forward with Bill C-75
so that farmers in Canada and Quebec can have access to more
funds, of course.
Although this is a fundamental aspect, I want to draw your
attention to the duplication bills such as this one generate. The
real question we should ask this morning is not whether the limit
established by the Farm Improvement and Marketing
Cooperatives Loans Act is high enough, but whether the
program itself is basically sound.
According to Agriculture Canada figures, the increased
demand for loan guarantees justifies the amendment proposed
by Bill C-75. Farmers must, of course, have access to financing
in order to improve or expand their facilities. We are not
questioning this fact. The question we must ask this morning is,
``What is the most efficient way to meet farmers' needs?''
In Quebec at the present time, there are three organizations
that help farmers secure financing or can do so. There is the
Société de financement agricole, which is under provincial
jurisdiction, the Farm Credit Corporation, under federal
jurisdiction, and the bill before us today, to amend the Farm
improvement and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act, the latter
also coming under federal jurisdiction.
13165
This is a fine example of this government's and this country's
mismanagement. You have two different wickets at the same
level of government offering loans to the same group of people.
Let me share with you what three farm producers from the
federal electoral district of Frontenac told me when I had the
chance to visit them a while ago. One of them described the
problems he encountered trying to get funding to expand his
family farm.
I phoned him this morning and took a few notes, because I
wanted to be able to quote specific figures. I asked him if he was
aware of the three choices he had. And that, I must point out,
contradicts what my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to
the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, said a moment ago.
He told me he was aware of only two sources of funding: the
Société de financement agricole and the Farm Credit
Corporation.
I said: ``There is a third one, you know'', and I gave him the
seven or eight letter acronym. ``Pardon my ignorance, he said,
but I had never heard of this Farm Improvement and Marketing
Cooperatives Loans Act until 8:20 this morning, when you told
me about it''. And this is a farm producer who had been
negotiating with both the Société de financement agricole and
the Farm Credit Corporation for five long months, from
December to May. This is a good example of duplication.
(1020)
If this government wishes our farm producers well, why does
it not have a single wicket? At present, there are three choices,
three wickets, and the third one, which we are debating this
morning, is all but unknown to Quebecer producers. To decide
whether to borrow from the Quebec Société de financement
agricole or the federal Farm Credit Corporation, in many
instances, our producers must set out on long and difficult
consultations with financial institutions to make sure they get
the best deal possible.
I asked that farmer: in the end, did you go to the Farm Credit
Corporation or the Société de financement agricole? The Liberal
members opposite, who are supposed to represent farmers from
the Pacific to the Atlantic, should listen carefully. That person
said that the best option for him was to go to the Société de
financement agricole, which is under Quebec's jurisdiction.
I was happy to hear that, and I asked him how he came to that
conclusion. It is not because he is a PQ or BQ partisan. He made
that decision simply because it was the best option. He told me
about contacting other lending institutions, namely the Royal
Bank, the National Bank and the caisses populaires, and how he
managed to get for his $750,000 loan a rate which is 0.75 per
cent lower.
I am proud to say that our farmers have now become
businesspeople running small businesses requiring investments
which are often in excess of one million dollars. Consequently,
they have to do some calculations, to think carefully and to
choose the option best suited to their needs. This morning, that
farmer also told me that this 0.75 per cent lower interest rate
would result in annual savings of $6,000 to $7,500. He added
that, by using these savings to lower the borrowed capital, he
will, over the next 25 years, save an enormous amount of money,
which is in the six figures.
This is the story of a farmer who talked to me this morning
about these three borrowing options, one of which he was not at
all aware of. I fail to see why the government is so intent on
duplicating existing structures, with the result that in the same
city and region there are two offices to deal with the same group
of farmers.
(1025)
Another friend of mine, who is involved in the dairy industry,
said, in reference to the 50/50 split between industrial and fluid
milk, that dairy producers were privileged in that they have two
ministers of agriculture. One, whom they do not know, does not
understand them and looks after two teats-that is, those which
give the industrial milk-and the other one, whom they know
very well, Marcel Landry, the Quebec minister of agriculture,
who is a Quebecer like them, who is accessible, who can be
reached any day, who understands them, and who visits them not
just once a year, but whenever they want to see him.
Can the same be said of the federal Minister of Agriculture?
Unfortunately, he never has time for people from Quebec, but he
always manages to make time for western grain producers. It
sounds a little like the Supreme Court, this tendency to favour to
the West.
I agree that these three agencies-the Société du financement
agricole, the Farm Credit Corporation and the FIMCLA we are
discussing this morning in this debate on Bill C-75-offer
programs that differ in a number of respects, so they do not
interfere with each other. That is the impression we get initially.
However, if we take a closer look, we soon realize that farm
producers would be better served if all these programs could be
accessed in a single location. It would be much more efficient to
have programs that are complementary but with the same
requirements, than to face filling out three different applications
because the criteria are not the same.
If for instance the Société de financement agricole had access
to the resources of the two other agencies, it could offer new
programs. The SFA could become a single wicket centre. For
years, the federal government has made a habit of making
certain programs unnecessarily complex and in some cases
almost inaccessible. A good example in Quebec is manpower
training, where we are losing $265 million because two levels of
government are involved. And even worse, our people do not get
full value for the money that goes into these programs. There is a
lot of interfering and shoving, and the neediest members of our
13166
society end up having to pay for this exercise in futility. Need I
repeat that manpower training is a provincial matter.
In fact, a province like Quebec, may decide to set criteria that
are not compatible with what the federal government has
decided to do. These criteria may be better adapted to the
province's needs and current situation but not fit into the federal
mould.
Let us assume that in Quebec, the Société du financement
agricole has standards that are stricter than those of the
FIMCLA referred to in Bill C-75. By setting up parallel
programs, the federal government would undermine what the
provincial government is doing, in this case the Government of
Quebec, and if the province's objective is part of a strategy to
develop the agricultural industry, that is just too bad.
Let us assume that the SFA wanted to do something about the
alarming increase in farm debt by adopting certain criteria.
(1030)
But it would not really be free to implement its decisions,
because some federal agency would come along and decide that
this would conflict with its priorities. Period. Once again, the
federal government, with its unlimited power to spend, has the
bigger end of the stick. To hell with the deficit. In 1970, this
country was almost deficitless. And now, 25 years later, it is
saddled with an accumulated deficit of over $550 billion, and
need I remind you of the unpleasant fact that, during those 25
years, with the exception of the nine year Conservative reign,
this country has been governed by the Liberals.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, BQ): Two
and two make four.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): In this case, apparently two and
two makes four and a little more, it would seem. And now, I will
open a chapter which will again be unpleasant for some of the
hon. members opposite. The government of Quebec has decided
to launch an investigation into the mismanagement of the crown
corporation Hydro Québec. I must say that, when I was a teen,
Hydro Québec was the pride and joy of all Quebecers.
Unfortunately, today, public satisfaction with this crown
corporation of which we were so proud 20 or 25 years ago has
sagged so low that obviously it has almost become a source of
public shame. But, the government of Quebec was not afraid to
launch an investigation. I ask my dear colleagues across the way
why they refused to launch an inquiry into the attempted
privatization of the Pearson Airport, from which, as everybody
knows, the big wheels of Canadian finance made hundreds of
millions? Why are you refusing to hold an independent
investigation?
Because, my friends, the Conservative majority in the Senate
overrode you on this issue. So, who will conduct the
investigation now? Four Conservative and three Liberal
senators. Of course, I have complete confidence in our senators.
The Prime Minister just appointed Mrs. Bacon to the Senate. I
have complete confidence, it goes without saying, that
everything will be conducted above board and with the
transparency that we should rightfully expect.
But, in Quebec, these people would not be selected to carry
out such a task. Quebec will select truly independent
investigators, who will probe the real wounds. If the wounds are
infected, they will be lanced, and the infection will be drained
off. I invite my Liberal colleagues opposite to reconsider their
decision. If you are blameless, my friends, you have no reason to
be afraid. Establish a royal commission of inquiry into the
privatization of the Pearson airport. It would appear, however,
that both parties, blue and red, are equally involved in this
privatization. The numbers would appear to be the same on both
sides, and, of course, they are. The situation is a bit like what
happens with the leaves at this time of the year. When the wind
blows, they turn over and their colour changes. When the blues
are close to power, they change colour; when the reds are, they
change colour too.
If the party that is currently running the country is blameless,
it has nothing to fear. Let it establish a commission of inquiry,
following the government of Quebec's proper lead.
(1035)
To come back to Bill C-75, the federal government's entry
criteria are not always what the provinces want. Federal
agencies can therefore end up competing with provincial
agencies, which may have different criteria.
Here again, rather than eliminate overlap and give the
provinces what is rightly theirs, the federal government is
insisting on keeping everything for itself.
By keeping the overlap, the federal government reserves the
opportunity to intervene in the way we manage our agricultural
sector in Quebec.
It is very odd, I must point out, for the department to
administer this legislation rather than the Farm Credit
Corporation. Although the programs differ, the Farm Credit
Corporation already guarantees loans. This, I repeat, is another
striking example of administrative duplication. We are not
talking any more just of duplication among different
governments but duplication within in a single government.
With this duplication, the deficit continues to grow. When we
reach the point of paying $40 billion a year just to cover the
interest costs of the debt, and the deficit is likely to reach $25 or
$26 billion, we are entitled to question previous
administrations.
13167
When I was the mayor of my small community before
entering federal politics the government of Quebec, which
governs municipalities, forced us to balance our budget every
year, and I am grateful to the government for that.
A municipality is not allowed to have a deficit, but it can have
a surplus. So in the beautiful municipality of Garthby, where I
was the mayor, every year we had a nice little surplus. People
were happy, and told us they were proud of their town council.
My colleague of Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, behind me,
was also the mayor of his municipality for a number of years. He
understands very well what I am talking about.
However, if you want a surplus you must do what you have to
do for it. When it was time to say no, we said no, and when it was
time to increase taxes, we did so. I would never have taken a
mortgage on my house to buy food for my family. No one can
afford the luxury of borrowing week after week to buy food. Yet,
that is what my colleagues across the way are doing. Even worst,
the Trudeau government did not know how to count.
Unfortunately, the Conservatives were in power for nine years.
They wanted to make up for lost time, and we did not stop them.
I was saying that municipalities have an obligation to present
balanced budgets. Maybe the government should also consider
passing a law which would force it to table balanced budgets.
Since to have enough you must have a little more, municipalities
used to set property taxes a little higher than they normally
would, in order to have a little 1 or 2 per cent surplus, which is
quite reasonable.
(1040)
Consequently, we are not opposed to the amendments put
forward in Bill C-75. However, we object strongly to
maintaining overlap and duplication, whether they are in the
federal government, in the federal machine, or between federal
and provincial jurisdictions.
A moment ago, I spoke of the existence of two departments of
agricultre for the dairy industry, one for industrial milk, and one
in the government of Quebec for fluid milk. It does not make
sense.
In closing, I can assure my colleague, the parliamentary
secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food, that
despite all these small flaws, we will vote in favour of this bill at
third reading. This will accelerate the process. Yet, we will do so
without much enthusiasm, because it is not in the interests of our
farmers, in the long term. In the short term, it is not that bad.
I extend an invitation to my colleague, the parliamentary
secretary, to visit Quebec. His is probably not as busy as his
boss, and he could come to explain this bill. For my part, I will
explain it to the farmers of my riding. They do not know very
much about this measure. Is is incredible how often we have to
explain to our constituents measures that are taken by the
federal government, but that people are totally unaware of,
especially in agriculture.
I spent a week in my riding, and when I meet farmers in my
capacity as agriculture critic, which I have been for seven
months now, I like to ask this trivia question: ``Who is the
Minister of Agriculture in Ottawa?'' Only rarely do I get the
right answer.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): There is
none.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): According to my colleague from
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, there is none. He is not
totally wrong, because in Quebec, our Minister of Agriculture is
Marcel Landry. It is Marcel Landry, and not the Minister of
Agriculture whose name I will not tell, because the House of
Commons Standing Orders prevent me from doing so.
Therefore, I am not contributing to his promotion in Quebec.
All kidding aside, the parliamentary secretary should come to
Quebec, and I would bet my bottom dollar that, out of ten
farmers, not one would be able to give the name of our Minister
of Agriculture in Ottawa. Quite often, those who can give it say
it wrong and only give his last name.
Farmers in our province are much more attached to Quebec
than to Ottawa, and I must say that I am proud of it. I am very
proud of it. And the day will soon come, I think, when our
farmers will understand that it would be so simple, instead of
having three options for borrowing money-two of them being
federal-, to at least combine them. It would be cost effective.
This would be a good way to save $25 or $30 million without it
hurting too much.
The other day, I was listening to the Minister of Finance say to
his colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot:
``Give me some areas where I can make cuts, where I can save
some money''. I am giving you one, the farming industry.
Combine these two possible options for borrowing money. You
will save at least $25 or $30 million. Taxpayers would be
thrilled. Also, farmers would save time and effort. Instead of
having to check which one would be best, they would have to see
only one. The ideal solution for our farmers would be to keep
only one of the two, the Quebec one: the Société de financement
agricole du Québec.
(1045)
Thank you for your attention and, in concluding, I would like
to mention that we will vote for Bill C-75, because we cannot do
otherwise.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I assure the House that in Saskatchewan farmers do
know the name of the agriculture minister but their faces are not
glowing or smiling when they think of his name.
13168
I rise in the House to indicate the Reform Party's support for
Bill C-75. The program is being used by an increasing number
of farmers. As we enter into the sunset phase of direct
subsidies, it is imperative that farmers have access to proper
financing. Excess cash flow that had been previously freed up
from government subsidies is all but non-existent, and that is
not bad. Farmers are now relying heavily on the banks and
credit unions to provide them with the necessary cash flow to
expand, diversify or maintain their operations.
However, as is the case with small business operators, farmers
have had and continue to have a number of difficulties securing
loans with financial institutions, whether for buying land or
covering operational expenses.
Reformers believe farmers and farm marketing co-operatives
have access to financial assistance not through government
administered programs like the Farm Credit Corporation and its
provincial counterparts but through chartered banks and credit
unions.
The intent of the Farm Improvement and Marketing
Co-operative Loans Act is: ``to increase the availability of
credit to farming operations and farmer owned marketing
co-operatives to improve farm assets and strengthen production
and financial stability''. We are talking for the most part about
farm improvement loans when we talk about FIMCLA.
Increasing the aggregate amount available to farmers and
farmer owned co-operatives from $1.5 billion to $3 billion will
continue to fulfil the objectives set out by the Farm
Improvement and Marketing Co-operative Loans Act. Farmers
have utilized this program from across Canada. The program has
been extremely popular, with the number of loans issued in the
past five years increasing by over 1,000 per cent. Increasing the
levels of moneys available under the program to $3 billion will
enable a greater number of farmers to secure loans.
There is some concern, however, with the reluctance of
financial institutions to provide loans to farmers without some
sort of guarantee from the government. This is not to say these
financial institutions will not provide loans to farmers; they
will, but with an arm's length of preconditions and unfavourable
interest rates.
Why are the banks so reluctant to provide loans to farmers and
farmer owned marketing co-operatives? Possibly it is because
governments are so willing to get involved in financial
guarantees, from megaprojects right down to small business
entrepreneurs.
The program over the years has had a default rate of only 1 per
cent. A 1 per cent default rate is quite impressive when we
compare it with other sectors of the economy. That speaks very
well of our farming community and tells us about the quality of
the people involved in the agricultural industry.
The banks over the past couple of years have lost incredible
amounts of money in defaulted loans to the likes of the Trizec
Corporation and the Reichmanns. However, with individuals
like the Reichmanns the banks are willing to bend over
backward to provide financing for their risky ventures. The
chartered banks appear to be prejudiced toward small business
and farms or else do not care so much about the smaller accounts
even though they likely compose the most reliable sector of
bank customers. Farming can be risky as well, but looking at
past performances farmers have been a very credible risk.
Farmers see this bill as the lesser of two evils. Ideally we
would like to see the government get out of the business of
guaranteeing loans to farmers and to farmer owned marketing
co-operatives. We do, however, see it as an important step in the
transition from a subsidy based industry to an entity able to
compete on its own feet.
We have stated in the House a number of times that farmers
can compete globally. This can be accomplished with
government's getting out of the business of telling farmers or
related industries how they should run their businesses.
Unfortunately Liberals have a long history of interfering in
places they do not belong. All I have to do is say three letters and
members will recognize them immediately, NEP. The blood
begins to boil in my fellow Reformers and Canadians right
across the country, particularly in the energy producing areas,
when they think of the national energy plan. That is an instance
where government got involved in business. It should not have
done so. It got involved in industry when it should not have done
so and messed it up. It is very important the government not get
involved directly in business but that its members be the
legislators who allow businesses to carry on in a fair and
equitable environment.
(1050)
It is sad to say the government continues to perpetuate the
myth that it knows what is best for business. For the remainder
of my speech I will address some of the areas the government
must remove itself from. One is the lending business.
The Farm Credit Corporation, the FCC, seems to have
outlived its usefulness in its present form, a dinosaur that should
be put out of its misery. The FCC provides services duplicate to
those services already provided by banks and credit unions. As
pointed out by the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, there
are private lenders willing to do the job and they see FCC as a
publicly financed competitor where borrowing money to lend
money is not right.
It is ludicrous that a government in debt as much as this
government is guaranteeing loans to farmers. The FCC is also in
the business of loaning money to farm related industry. How
many ways do we approach this? Certainly we are putting
13169
ourselves as government in a compromised position when we
are the legislators of the lending industry. We are guaranteeing
loans and we are also providing loans. The waters are indeed
muddy.
What is next for the Farm Credit Corporation? About the only
thing the FCC does not do is provide long term loans at
reasonably fixed rates. That was the original concept under
which the FCC was created.
If this is not possible, why do we keep the FCC around? A
related issue to the FCC fiasco is the amount of money being
given to the western economic diversification program and the
prairie farm rehabilitation administration, the PFRA, with
regard to the farm machinery industry in Saskatchewan.
As a Saskatchewanian I see the importance of a home grown
agricultural manufacturing business. I am in favour of creating
new agriculture technology in responding to the desire for
increased efficiency and diversification and creating jobs in a
stable economy. If the government is involved in financing these
ventures, it is of concern to us and taxpayers alike; often we are
the same people.
There is no reason the farm machinery industry should be
propped up either in the short term or the long term. Many of the
Liberal hair brained short term financing schemes have turned
into long term drains on the public purse.
In the past eight years over $34 million has been approved for
loans or grants to Saskatchewan farm industry manufacturers.
The agreements are a combination of grants and interest free,
non-repayable and conditional loans. Although the $34 million
is a combination of federal and provincial governments, the
federal government through western economic diversification
and the PFRA have provided a substantial amount.
It appalls me when the president of the largest agricultural
machinery manufacturer in Saskatchewan makes the following
statement: ``A company has no choice but to look at what is
there and to take what is offered if you are to remain
competitive''. This is from the Western Producer on June 1,
1995.
Flexi-Coil has received over $19 million in closing grants
from the federal and provincial governments since 1987. Dale
Botting, executive director of the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business, commenting on the grants and loans
given out states that the days of government giving money to a
chosen few has to stop.
A recent survey conducted by the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business members shows that most are opposed to
business subsidies. Members who have received grant money in
the past would have proceeded with their expansion without the
grant by a margin of three to one.
Another farm machinery manufacturer, Bourgault Industries,
is competing head to head with Flexi-Coil. Bourgault Industries
has not received a single government dollar yet it has become a
successful business, with sales of over $50 million each year.
In an article in the Western Producer Gerry Bourgault,
president of the company, stated: ``Refusing government loans
and grants shows up in a healthy bottom line. When sales are
down the company is forced to reassess its equipment and make
changes that farmers want. Government money clouds the
financial picture. If you do not run your business properly,
government grants are not going to make up for that.
Governments should not be in the business of giving money
away to businesses. In most cases it is just squandered''.
The Liberal government should be in consultation with the
likes of Gerry Bourgault. There is no doubt the Liberals have
been and continue to consult the wrong individuals. The
Liberals must stop interfering in agriculture and business. As
stated by Mr. Bourgault, refusing government loans and grants
shows up in a healthy bottom line. Propping up business with
loans and grants does nothing more than create a greater
dependency on government. Reformers believe the economy
should be market driven and not skewed by government
interference and intervention.
(1055)
The small business loans program should probably be merged
with the farm improvement loan program. They are both
attempting to do the same thing. They are both supposed to be
financially sound and we as members of Parliament must insist
both programs be actuarially sound and that all costs with
respect to the program should not come out of the taxpayers'
pockets but should be paid for by the users of the loan guarantee
program.
I understand the farm improvement loans are not subsidized
by the taxpayers. We as legislators must insist on proper
accounting and it be maintained. The administrative costs must
be covered by the users and the default rate must not become so
high that the moneys are taken out taxpayers' pockets to
subsidize any industry, whether it be my industry, farming, or
any other small business or megaproject. We all have to operate
by the same rules.
The Reform Party sees Bill C-75 as a small step in the right
direction with respect to private sector lending institutions
making capital available to viable farm operations. The
government still has a long way to go in removing itself from the
grants and loans to all areas of the economy.
FIMCLA must be made self-sustaining. It must not be a
burden on the taxpayers and governments. Governments must
get out of the business of being in business and they must
provide fairness and equity to the business sector.
13170
The government must set some priorities. I cannot enunciate
this strongly enough. The first priority is to get out of the grants
business 100 per cent; no more grants, period. Second, there
should be no public financial lending institutions. They provide
a conflict for the government with the private sector.
Governments should be in the business of making sure business
operates fairly and is honest. It should not be in the business.
Third, there should be no loan guarantees to megaprojects and
there should be no political patronage. Fourth, there should be
no guarantees to small business and there should be no loan
guarantees to farms, and we should not treat them differently.
To reverse the order-
The Speaker: My colleague will have the floor when debate
continues after question period.
It being 11 a.m., the House will hear Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
13170
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
by the turn of the century the World Health Organization
estimates that as many as 30 million people may be exposed to
the virus which causes AIDS. It is therefore critical for Canada
to create partnerships with other governments in an effort to
combat the spread of this deadly disease. For example, the
Canada-Ukraine partners program is proving it is possible to
contain HIV infection and prevent the devastation of AIDS.
Yesterday by hosting the president of the Ukraine's national
HIV-AIDS committee, I had the opportunity to learn about
community health education programs which will have a direct
impact on both of our countries.
We must continue to support these efforts which serve as
model examples of international co-operation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the content of the speeches made last night in this
House on the recognition of same sex spouses shows that this
country still has a long way to go as far as respect for differences
is concerned.
The Liberal member for Central Nova, who made hateful and
disparaging remarks on the gay community last winter,
expressed her contempt again last night when she said, and I
quote: ``Canadians do not have to accept homosexuality as being
natural and moral. Homosexuality is not natural, it is immoral''.
The comments made by the Reform member for Calgary
Northeast also reflect a narrow mindset.
The members of the Bloc Quebecois strongly denounce the
contemptuous attitude of some Liberal and Reform members
toward the gay community. We will never accept the attacks
made against this community by small minded politicians, when
all homosexuals want is the same rights as those enjoyed by
other citizens.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today wraps up national awareness week. This week
was a time for Canadians to have a special opportunity to focus
on promoting and creating barrier free learning for people with
disabilities. It was a time to recognize the thousands of
volunteers and the partnership of organizations and
governments that adds strength to the message of access. One
aspect of the program is the face to face program that matches
employers with those with disabilities.
I am pleased to thank many of my colleagues, as many
members from the House, including Reformers, are
participating again this year.
As part of awareness week the Standing Committee on Human
Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons had the opportunity to
present the Centennial Flame award. As a member of that
committee, I congratulate this year's winner, Miss Laurie
Bellefontaine.
Opportunity is not created by quotas and coercion.
Opportunity becomes real through community based initiatives
such as this that promote understanding of the abilities and
strengths of the disabled in the workplace.
I salute all who participate in this worthy program.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 62
per cent of single parent families led by women live in poverty.
Two weeks ago, the courts ruled against Suzanne Thibaudeau,
who had challenged the law requiring custodial parents to pay
taxes on child support payments. The law is unfair and simply
impoverishes women even more. We have waited long enough.
[English]
Parliament has already debated this issue in the form of a
private member's motion. There has been a task force on child
support payments. The minister has had ample time and
opportunity to act.
13171
The minister has stalled on this issue for too long. It was this
government that appealed the Thibaudeau case last year,
causing another year's delay. I urge the minister to act
immediately to change this unfair law.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recently the United States Senate passed legislation allowing oil
and gas development on the calving grounds of the Porcupine
caribou herd in the Alaskan wildlife refuge. This action
contravenes a 1987 agreement recognizing Canadian and
American joint responsibility to protect the habitat of the
Porcupine caribou herd and the Gwich'in people who depend on
it.
I urge the government to ensure both the continuation of the
U.S. government's commitment and the right of the Gwich'in
people to their traditional food source and longstanding way of
life. We owe this action to our aboriginal people.
* * *
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to inform the House that the
appeal challenging the wearing of turbans by Sikh RCMP
officers has been summarily dismissed in the unanimous
decision made by the Federal Court of Appeal in Calgary.
The measure of a strong and just society is its ability to weave
our differences into the fabric of our national identity. The
dismissal of this challenge has once again proven that Canada is
a strong and just society.
These decisions reaffirm that the wearing of articles of faith
by a Sikh police officer in no way impedes their ability to
perform their duties with impartiality and fairness.
Let this decision be a wake up call for the Reform Party. Its
opposition to Sikhs in the RCMP is out of line with the Canadian
legal tradition and demonstrates an intolerance to cultural
diversity. When will the Reform Party realize the 1930s are
over? It is 1995 and the time has come for it to support the
religious freedom of all Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
each year over 225,000 Canadian children are abused.
According to the committee on sexual offences against children
and youth, 53 per cent of females and 31 per cent of males have
been victims of one or more unwanted sexual acts.
Approximately four in five of those incidents happened to
victims when they were children or youths, and one-third of all
assaults against children occurred within the family. In addition,
at least one million children in Canada have witnessed violence
by their fathers against their mothers.
(1105 )
Children who witness violence by one parent against another
are often considered children at risk by child welfare authorities
because of the lasting emotional and psychological
consequences for the child. In many cases the children grow up
to be abusive themselves, thus perpetuating the cycle of
violence.
I appeal to all levels of government and to all Canadians and
organizations that we must do a better job related to violence
against children.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
sovereignists have always maintained that a sovereign Quebec
will negotiate sharing the federal debt with the Government of
Canada on an equitable basis. A study conducted by the Institut
national de la recherche scientifique and released yesterday
shows that a sovereign Quebec's share of the federal debt would
have to be reduced by $24 billion on account of the fact that,
over the years, Quebec has paid more than it has received from
the federal government. The INRS study concludes that a
sovereign Quebec should therefore be responsible for 17.4 per
cent of the federal debt.
It is important to note that in the present federal system,
Quebecers currently assume 23 per cent of the federal debt with
the $30 billion in taxes that they pay each year to the federal
government. Hence the INRS conclusion that the total debt
burden of a sovereign Quebec would amount to 103 per cent of
GDP, as compared to 108 per cent for Canada at the present time.
According to the INRS study, a sovereign Quebec would
therefore have a lower debt level than Canada now has.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the time has come to give Canadians freedom of choice
in health care.
Every year Canadian taxpayers put tens of billions of dollars
into health care premiums to pay for our medicare. Yet many of
these same Canadians make the conscious decision to drop out
of the conventional health care system, choosing alternate forms
of health care.
13172
One of my constituents, Mrs. Margaret Wiens, recently wrote
to me: ``A change in the way we deliver health care is long
overdue. It is discriminatory to only cover and recognize
conventional drugs. I and hundreds of thousands of others in
Canada faithfully pay our medical premiums, and therefore we
should have freedom to choose our preferred type of
treatment''.
I am confident that Canadians are capable of making
intelligent decisions on how they will care for their bodies. It is
time for the government to share this confidence. The Canada
Health Act must be changed to return to Canadians the freedom
of medical choice they are calling for.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the PQ government refused to support
an opposition motion on health care reform. It read as follows:
``That this Assembly support the proposal by the Leader of the
Bloc Quebecois, Lucien Bouchard, to broaden the scope of the
ongoing consultations on health care reform in Quebec''.
This failure of the PQ government to accede to this legitimate
request by their separatist friend and partner clearly shows that
the coalition in Quebec City has two faces. They are partners for
promoting sovereignty but when it comes to health, they are on
opposite sides of the issue.
Does this contemptuous rejection of their Bloc friend's
proposal a sign that, this time, the PQ will not let him dictate a
new ``virage'' or change in direction?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, ten good
reasons to vote Liberal in Ontario:
(1) With the Liberals you know you are always safe.
(2) Bob Rae and the NDP have done enough damage.
(3) The Liberals always care.
(4) Mike Harris is harmful to your health with his foolish tax
proposals.
(5) In one way or another, if you are a single mom, youth,
middle class, senior, or own a small business, you can be certain
that Harris is after your pocketbook.
(6) You could not sleep at night knowing that there are Tories
in Ontario.
(7) If you are injured, disabled, sick, or looking for your
annual check up, Harris will be waiting for you to add salt to
your wounds and do more damage to you.
(8) You have fooled with the Tories federally and with the
jacuzzi socialists provincially and you were badly wounded.
(9) In the blink of a eye, Tories will suck the blood and money
out of the most vulnerable in Ontario.
(10) With the Liberals, you will not take a chance. Your
satisfaction will be guaranteed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Quebec minister responsible for restructuring
released the findings of another study. According to the
minister, the results of that study, which focused on the
proportion of the national debt that would have to be assumed by
an independent Quebec, are very positive.
(1110)
Of course these results are positive. Do you think for a
moment that the Quebec minister ``responsible for propaganda''
would have agreed to release a study which would not serve the
separatist cause of the PQ government?
Rather than continuing to spend Quebec taxpayers' money
with impunity, in an attempt to give some credibility to a project
which does not have any, the PQ government should concentrate
its efforts on job creation and economic recovery.
Otherwise, at the rate it is spending public money, there will
soon be nothing left but the debt to share in the PQ and BQ
kingdom.
* * *
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we were
very disappointed by the editorial of free lance writer Gilbert
Oskaboose in
The First Perspective magazine.
His disparaging remarks on Quebecers and sovereignist
leaders do not in any way reflect the feelings expressed by the
First Nations chiefs and members with whom we meet as part of
our work. Our differences of opinions usually do not keep us
from having civilized discussions. Unfortunately, the tone used
by the editorialist does not reflect the respectful attitude which
we are used to in our contacts with members of the First Nations.
Quebecers, including a sovereignist government which was
the first one in Canada to recognize the existence of aboriginal
nations, have, for a long time, been more open minded toward
these people than Canadians have in general.
13173
The Bloc Quebecois hopes that aboriginal leaders will
denounce the comments made by Mr. Oskaboose, so as to
promote, on both sides, the open-mindedness which will lead
to agreements such as the ones which were recently signed by
Quebec and the Crees and which will foster peace and
co-operation between our peoples.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have been
down this road before: Liberal, Tory, same old story.
If the minister of public works is not too busy pork barrelling
or designing a statue of himself for his memorial parkway he
might want to take a Sunday drive down the scenic 104 highway,
where he will find a message on a billboard unveiled today by
the Reform Party and concerned citizens of Wentworth Valley.
Up until this point the minister has refused to listen to the
people. Maybe this message will get through to him. Diversion
of $26 million so that the minister can buy votes in his riding is
simply unacceptable behaviour, and taxpayers are not going to
take it any more. Nova Scotians and all Canadians are sick and
tired of the despicable political practices of the Conservatives
and now the Liberals, especially of the minister from Cape
Breton.
What does the sign say to the minister? It says ``$26 million is
highway robbery. Give it back to highway 104''.
* * *
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
is national transportation day and next week is national
transportation week in Canada.
Organizations have scheduled a variety of transportation
related activities and seminars in major cities around the
country, including Hamilton, Ontario, where the ninth annual
international Great Lakes-St. Lawrence mayors conference will
discuss, among other matters, transportation issues.
The theme of national transportation week is ``Careers in
Transportation: Opportunities, Training, Skills''. As the
Minister of Transport has said, the coming century will bring
new pressure to increase Canada's productivity. This pressure
will have an enormous impact on the skilled professionals who
design, build, operate, and maintain our transportation system.
Today's dedicated transportation workers are expected to be
skilled in technology, management, administration, and public
relations. As we pay tribute to the skilled and dedicated people
who keep our transportation system running, we must also
ensure that those who succeed them have new skills needed for
the 21st century.
I also want to congratulate Mr. Geoffrey Elliot, the national
transportation person of the year. Without his timeless efforts
Canadians would not have the many benefits resulting from the
recent open skies agreement with the United States.
* * *
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the snow crab fishery in the Gulf of St.
Lawrence has emerged as one of the real success stories in the
Atlantic fishery.
This year it will generate more than $275 million in economic
benefits in a few short weeks. Success presents a tough policy
challenge for the minister of fisheries, who has to set the rules
for managing this resource. He must ensure that (a) the snow
crab stock is not overfished; (b) the number allowed to fish this
resource can make a reasonable return; and (c) the economic
benefits from this common property resource are shared
equitably.
Determining how many fishermen can participate in the snow
crab fishery and what the size of their individual quotas should
be has proven to be among the thorniest aspects of reconciling
these policy objectives. This year the minister has adopted a
novel and ingenious approach for dealing with this difficult
problem. He has allocated a portion of the total allowable catch
of snow crab to a number of fishermen's associations and has
challenged them to find a way to fish their allocation safely and
responsibly and to share the benefits fairly among those who do
not have regular snow crab licences.
(1115 )
The fishermen are rising to the challenge. They have formed
companies and worked out harvesting and processing strategies
to share the benefits of this temporary allocation.
_____________________________________________
13173
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, B.Q.): Mr.
Speaker, a week after the latest escalation in the conflict in
Bosnia, when 370 peacekeepers, including 55 Canadians, were
taken hostage by Serbian forces, there has been a flurry of
statements and meetings which failed to produce any concrete
results leading to the release of the hostages. This morning, the
International Red Cross said that the Bosnian Serbs told them
they would release the hostages unconditionally, either today or
tomorrow.
13174
Could the Deputy Prime Minister confirm the statement by
the Red Cross that the Bosnian Serbs will release the 370
peacekeepers who are being kept hostage sometime during the
next few hours, although Bosnian Serb leader Radovan
Karadzic said yesterday that no hostages could be released
without guarantees that all air strikes would be suspended?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we received
communications mentioning that a few hostages might be
released today, but at 11.13 a.m., we were unable to confirm
whether that was the case.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, B.Q.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Minister of National
Defence confirmed yesterday that Canada was negotiating with
the Bosnian Serbs to allow a rotation of the 45 Canadian
peacekeepers being held hostage at their observation post.
Meanwhile, in Europe the Minister of Foreign Affairs was
saying, with Canada's allies, that there would be no negotiations
with the Serbs regarding the hostages.
That being said, who speaks for the Canadian government? Is
it the Minister of Foreign Affairs or is it the Minister of National
Defence, who said that conducting negotiations would be
tantamount to saying the Bosnian Serbs have the right to take
hostages? Who is telling the truth?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of
Canada does not negotiate with the Bosnian Serb government.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, B.Q.): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister should say so to the
Minister of National Defence who said yesterday in the House,
as did the Prime Minister-just read Hansard-that
negotiations were being conducted locally to obtain the release
of hostages.
In any case, the Prime Minister was delighted with the
position taken by the UN Secretary General on redefining the
mandate of the peacekeepers in Bosnia, and he went on to say
that this had been Canada's position since last Sunday. However,
need I remind members that although it has been questioned
about this all week, the government has steadfastly refused to
announce its intentions?
Since tomorrow there will be a meeting of NATO defence
ministers in Paris, mainly to discuss the French plan, and since a
NATO plane was shot down this morning, while flying over
Bosnia, could the government tell Canadians now, before
tomorrow's meeting, what Canada's position will be on the
French proposals?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
underscore that the claim made by the hon. member is simply
not true. In comments made to date we have stated quite clearly
that we are not negotiating with the Bosnian Serbs.
If the hon. member's question is reviewed, he speaks about
the issue of rotation. In the normal activities of the team on the
ground there is a rotation of troops. That rotation is being
discussed on an ongoing and soldier to soldier basis in Visoko.
That is certainly consistent with the position we have taken as a
government.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Defence and Industry
officials confirmed yesterday that the government is preparing
to spend $2.6 billion on the purchase of 47 new helicopters. The
main supplier of this equipment vying for the contract is no
other than Agusta, the very company facing accusations of
bribery in Europe.
(1120)
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, who is
responsible for enforcing the government's code of ethics in this
House. Will the government commit to excluding Agusta from
all new contracts until we get to the bottom of the circumstances
surrounding the EH-101 contract, as demanded by her
colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, in
1993?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no contract has been
authorized by the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is again for the Deputy Prime Minister, who is
responsible, as I said earlier, for enforcing the government's
code of ethics in this House when the Prime Minister is away.
Given that Agusta just hired the Liberal Party of Canada's
former communications director, Daniel Despins, to lobby for
the sale of new helicopters to the Canadian government, and
given that all cabinet members know him well, how can the
Deputy Prime Minister not commit to launching an
investigation into the awarding of the EH-101 contract to
Agusta before the government does any more business with the
company, which is, as I already said, currently facing corruption
charges in Europe?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it
quite clear to the member. No contract has been approved either
by the Minister of National Defence or by the government.
13175
The member quotes unnamed sources within the bureaucracy.
It is not the bureaucracy that will make this decision and no
decision has been made about any contract by any member of
cabinet.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
defence minister said he was looking forward to finding out how
the U.S. forces would be deployed in Bosnia. Today the world
got a clear indication of where the U.S. is headed when one of its
F-16 fighter planes was shot down over Bosnia earlier this
morning. Everyone knows this act could escalate the conflict
even further.
For the second day in a row, my question is this. Will the
government assure the House that it will not let our troops get
dragged into a war for which they are neither equipped nor
mandated?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have confirmed
that an American plane was shot down. Obviously the situation
is very volatile.
A number of Canadian hostages are being held in various
parts of the territory in question. The prudent thing for the
Government of Canada to do to protect the safety of the hostages
is to go to the meeting in Paris tomorrow with a clear mandate.
Our number one priority will be to protect those Canadian
soldiers and to ensure that any action taken in a collective way
will ensure the safety of the hostages and the soldiers who are on
the ground right now.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, civil wars are
very messy and they get even worse when other countries join in
the fighting, and the situation is escalating in Bosnia.
Given that our troops are not equipped for a high intensity
conflict, what is the exact position the Canadian government
will take tomorrow in Paris? Will it be the position of the foreign
affairs minister or the defence minister, because a definite
question has to be asked?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not quite clear as
to the options the hon. member is offering. I have underlined
how concerned we are about the more than 50 Canadians either
being detained or being held hostage.
At this point our main concern when we go to Paris tomorrow
is to ensure that any collective action decided on by all of the
participating parties will first and foremost ensure the safety of
those soldiers who are on the ground.
I am sure all Canadians want the Government of Canada to
ensure the safety of those troops who are currently being held
hostage and others who are on the ground.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are all
concerned about the hostages. We want them released. We want
all Canadians withdrawn, including the hostages.
(1125 )
We welcome the news that Bosnian Serbs will be releasing the
hostages tomorrow without condition. The Reform Party hopes
that will happen. There would not have been hostages if we had
acted on this much sooner.
Given the escalation of the situation in Bosnia and the
potential for further hostage taking, will the government make a
commitment to withdraw our troops once the hostages are
released?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did say that at about
11.13 a.m. we had the opportunity to check the status. At the
moment we have no confirmation of the release of hostages. We
hope that news is forthcoming.
Our first responsibility should not be to outline our
negotiating stance for political gain. Rather it should be to
ensure that when we go to Paris, all the parties that have troops
on the ground have a chance to make a full exploration of all of
the possibilities on the table.
That is certainly what the Minister of National Defence will
be doing in Paris tomorrow.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
In its decision last Friday in the case of Egan v. Canada, the
Supreme Court of Canada found that sexual orientation is a
profoundly personal characteristic, which is either immutable or
alterable only at unacceptable personal cost and which,
therefore, comes under the protection of section 15 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Since the Supreme Court of Canada considers discrimination
based on sexual orientation unconstitutional, will the minister
not acknowledge that he has a duty to table his bill to amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act by the end of the present session
and thus make all discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation illegal? A little courage, Mr. Speaker.
13176
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has
referred to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada
in which the court considered the equality provisions in section
15 of the charter as they relate to sexual orientation.
For the first time the court pointed out that sexual orientation
is an analogous ground under the charter for the purposes of that
section. We are considering the judgment. More than one
judgment was issued by the court in its analysis and the judges
expressed a variety of views.
Quite apart from the judgment, the government has long
recognized the importance of amending the human rights act to
provide that sexual orientation cannot be a basis on which
discrimination occurs. We have long since made the
commitment to do just that.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would remind the Minister of Justice that the Quebec
Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms has prohibited
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation since 1978 and
that he should use it as an example.
Are we to understand that, despite the very clear decision by
the Supreme Court, the government will not change its policy
with respect to homosexuals, lesbians and same sex spouses, a
policy which, by the fact of doing nothing, denies the rights
accorded by the country's justice system to all these Canadians?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fairness the member
will know that the judgment of the court was released a week ago
yesterday. As I mentioned, there are judgments both ways
expressing a variety of views with respect to these matters and
what flows from them.
The government should do what it is doing. It has reaffirmed
its commitment to amend the human rights act. It is also going to
look at the implications of the judgment. It is going to consult
with caucus and determine the position that we will take on the
wide variety of issues that arise on the subject of sexual
orientation.
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
dealing with the administration of the justice ministry, the
minister insisted yesterday that ``when the government goes to
the legal profession to hire agents to help us with legal cases, the
fundamental criteria is competence and merit''.
That being the case, can the justice minister explain to
Canadians the appointments recently made in the revenue
minister's riding in Victoria. How does the appointment of three
firms with little or no experience in drug prosecution and the
termination of a firm with 20-years' experience fit his stated
criteria of competence and merit?
(1130 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia, as
in the case of all other provinces where legal agents were
appointed, suggested names for appointment were sent to the
regional offices of the Department of Justice where they were
vetted. We asked the regional justice offices whether they were
satisfied the persons under consideration were competent for the
work that was intended.
In the case of the agents under discussion, as in the case of all
others who were appointed, the regional offices expressed their
view that the individuals were competent for the work that was
intended to be given to those lawyers.
If the hon. member will look at the record of agents appointed
across the country he will find that in many cases agents
appointed during the last regime are still doing work. Their
appointments have been continued by the government because
we thought they were appropriate to carry on the work in those
cases.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in news
reports from Victoria an experienced undercover officer
commenting on the justice department's termination of a firm
with 20 years of drug prosecution experience has said:
It is a complete and utter farce. We are losing very experienced and very
knowledgeable prosecutors who are used to dealing at all levels of drug
enforcement. This is a definite blow to drug enforcement.
Public safety should never be compromised by political
patronage. It begs the question: was the justice minister made
aware of the very close connections between the revenue
minister's political interests and the appointed firms?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon.
member that public safety should not be compromised on any
basis. I insist that in this case it was not.
The agents who were appointed are competent for the task for
which they have been retained. As to the comments of the police
officers, I know only what I have read in the press and what has
been quoted by the hon. member.
13177
I can say that any concerns anyone in the administration of
justice system has about the quality of any of our agents can
be communicated to the regional office and their comments will
be considered; but we are satisfied that the agents we have in
place are competent to carry out work on behalf of the people
of Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, three times
this year the Minister of Justice was unable to explain why
individuals and businesses in Quebec receive only 5 per cent of
the value of professional and special services contracts awarded
by his department and has even expressed some doubt about this
percentage. However, his own officials confirm our allegations.
After studying this matter for three months, can the Minister
of Justice explain to us why his department awards 15 times
more contracts to residents of his province, Ontario, than it does
to residents of Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises
a subject that two of his colleagues raised on earlier occasions.
I have a draft response on my desk to which I should have got
this week but did not. I will see the written response is in the
hands of the hon. members who asked the questions next week.
It will furnish a detailed response to the questions that have been
raised on this subject.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would point
out that the minister has been studying this matter for three
months but has yet to give us an answer. The Minister of Justice
has also said in this House that he did not believe that 98 per cent
of professional and special services contracts are drafted in
English. But, once again, his officials say the opposite.
Is the Minister of Justice still of the opinion that the fact that
research contracts awarded by his department are drafted in
English only accurately reflects the reality of bilingualism
within his department?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has
the right to expect a detailed and factual response to these
questions. Both the hon. member and his colleagues have asked
specific questions about the number and percentage of contracts
that have been awarded and the use of language in specific work
done for the department.
My officials have prepared a response which I have in draft
form on my desk. I shall get that response on these points to the
hon. member and his colleagues within the week.
* * *
(1135 )
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
every Canadian knows full well the story of 15-year old Tara
Manning from Quebec and how she was sexually assaulted and
stabbed 47 times.
Every Canadian's heart goes out to her family and is outraged
that a killer may go free if a court upholds the claim that the
killer's rights were infringed by a judged granting a warrant for
a DNA search.
Since the minister knows full well that in order for the
perpetrator of the crime to be held accountable legislation must
clear the House before the summer break allowing a judge to
grant a DNA search, will the minister immediately bring the
legislation before the House?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very aware of the
case. I met with Mr. Manning, the father of the victim, and with
his parents. I was very much affected by the sadness of the
tragedy, particularly for the family.
I am not going to discuss the Manning case because it is
pending in the courts. However I will respond on the subject of
DNA testing and I will say that the government has said it would
introduce changes to the Criminal Code to provide a further
basis upon which authorities could take samples for DNA
testing for prosecution purposes.
I should point out to the hon. member that there are provisions
in the code at present which are being used for that purpose.
Nothing I say is intended to suggest that those are insufficient
for that purpose at this time.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians continually hear the government and the minister
state that they will change legislation to enhance public safety.
It has been 19 months and I have not seen it yet.
Canadians should have confidence in the justice system. We
are waiting for the drunkenness defence bill. Now we are
waiting and waiting for this legislation, which will definitely
serve a purpose in the country and solve the problems.
How could the minister dare speak of justice when he
completely abandoned the most basic concept of humanity, that
when a person is murdered society must punish the murderer?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon.
member
13178
to be fair to the facts. Bill C-72 with respect to the drunkenness
defence is before the House. Indeed it is at committee.
The hon. member took a very active role in the consideration
of Bill C-37, which was improved because of his work on
committee dealing with amendments to the Young Offenders
Act. That bill is now in the Senate. The hon. member
participated in committee work with respect to Bill C-41, which
is intended to strengthen the sentencing provisions of the
Criminal Code.
However, on the point the hon. member raises, I can tell the
hon. member as I have in the past that we will introduce
legislation to amend the Criminal Code to broaden the basis
upon which DNA samples can be obtained.
I emphasize to the hon. member that there are provisions-
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): When?
Mr. Rock: I cannot say exactly when, but I can say we will do
it.
I want the hon. member to be aware there are provisions in the
code already that can be used for that purpose and have been
used for that purpose. I do not suggest for a moment that they are
insufficient for that purpose.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs says that the scandal
involving Canadian diplomats who trade their airplane tickets
for money is a thing of the past. The President of the Treasury
Board claims that the phenomenon is limited to diplomats
assigned to dangerous and difficult cities. However, for a
diplomat posted in Tokyo with his family, it can amount to 40
per cent of his salary, tax free.
How can the President of the Treasury Board justify that such
financial benefits, which were granted in 1993, are still
available to Canadian diplomats, when other civil servants have
had their salaries frozen since 1991?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would be happy to look further into the particulars the
hon. member has raised.
I can say, as I have said before, that in terms of foreign service
directives there has been a tightening up of those procedures and
that previous difficulties that arose have been corrected.
(1140 )
I could also point out that there is a three-year review which is
being conducted this year with respect to foreign service
directives. The matter is fully under review.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, moreover,
the majority of diplomats who trade their airplane tickets for
money to pay for their holidays do not go to Canada and are not
even obliged to submit their receipts. They pocket the money,
tax free.
Will the President of the Treasury Board undertake to review
these benefits, granted in 1993, before laying off more civil
servants, who cannot take advantage of the lax approach of
Treasury Board?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, surely the hon. member understands that when people
receive foreign postings they and their families should have an
opportunity to be able to come home from time to time. There
are, particularly in the case of what are called hardship posts,
increased opportunities to do that.
Some very strict rules have been put into place. Lately we
have been experimenting with a pilot system whereby we have
actually lowered the amount of money that we will provide to 80
per cent from 90 per cent of the economy fare for a return trip, in
that way further controlling the costs and recognizing the need
of the government to cut government spending.
We will be evaluating that in the framework of the three-year
review which is due this fall. We will be looking at further
measures to ensure that the taxpayers' money is well protected
and well spent in this regard.
* * *
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand
there was news this morning concerning Youth Services Canada.
Since this is the time of year when many students are seeking
employment, could the Secretary of State for Training and
Youth provide the House with some of the details of the
important announcement?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training
and Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I
rise to respond to my colleague from Oxford.
We have the start up of 63 new projects under Youth Services
Canada. These projects will allow over 850 young Canadians
across the country to gain valuable skills while helping out in
13179
their communities. Whether it is opening up a second hand store
for the needy in Montreal, setting up crime awareness programs
in Winnipeg or preserving native culture in Yukon, projects are
geared to help both the kids and their communities.
Unemployed youth who participate in Youth Services Canada
are breaking the cycle of dependency and learning good, solid
job skills.
The announcement underlies once again the government's
commitment to the youth of the country and its determination to
take action on it.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Solicitor General
confirmed for the record that the commissioner of the RCMP
advised that the commercial crime section of the RCMP in
Winnipeg had reviewed allegations made by the member for
Lisgar-Marquette and found no evidence to support an
investigation.
The crime section of the Winnipeg RCMP has no record of a
request from the commissioner of the RCMP on the matter.
My question is for the solicitor general. The commercial
crime division in Winnipeg says once thing; the solicitor general
says another thing. Who are we to believe?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have conveyed to the House, and earlier to the hon.
member's colleague, information provided to me by the
commissioner of the RCMP.
The deputy commissioner for operations of the RCMP today
sent a letter to the hon. member's colleague setting out the
position of the RCMP on the matter. If the hon. member's
colleague will agree, I would be delighted to ensure that the
letter is released to the public. I think it should clear the air and
help the hon. member to get on to something more constructive.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I hope we are making progress here. We are not
asking the solicitor general to launch an investigation or become
involved in the day to day operations of the RCMP. However, we
are very concerned that we find out exactly where the file went.
There is supposed to be a file.
Could the solicitor general advise the House where the file
went? If it did not go to Winnipeg, as they say it did not, then
where did the file go?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would have hoped the hon. member would have
confirmed, on behalf of his colleague, that the letter the deputy
commissioner of the RCMP sent to him explaining the
involvement of the RCMP in the matter be made public. I think
that would be a better way to clear the air than to keep asking this
kind of question.
(1145)
There must be some other matters the hon. member could deal
with rather than attempting to create wrong impressions which
should be the subject of an apology.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the
Environment.
In her recent answer to a question on the health hazards from
24 highly contaminated sites, the Minister of the Environment
has reaffirmed the polluter pays principle and confirmed that
Environment Canada denies any responsibility concerning
so-called orphan sites.
Could the minister tell the House when the inventory of
contaminated orphan sites will be completed by her department,
and when she expects to be in a position to lay charges against
owners who refuse to clean up their sites?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that question could
have been addressed to my Quebec counterpart. The hon.
member is aware that the federal government signed an
agreement with Quebec a few years ago whereby we financed, in
partnership with the province, provincially identified orphan
sites. Federal funds have been paid to the provinces, and they
made the decisions on the use of those funds for clean-up
operations.
When all environment ministers agreed two years ago that we
should stop paying for orphan sites, we did so at the request of
the provinces, who have the instruments to initiate prosecutions
in the private sector, more particularly in Quebec.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of the Environment
expect us to take seriously her commitment to the polluter pays
principle, when, in 1994, the Canadian government initiated just
13 prosecutions under the Canadian Environmental Protection
Act, which is 30 per cent less than in 1991, and 40 per cent less
than in 1992. And that does not include contaminated sites in the
Arctic which are not under the direct responsibility of the
provinces. How can the minister explain such a drastic drop in
the number of prosecutions, if not by a total lack of commitment
to a stringent enforcement of the act?
13180
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a result of my
intention to increase the number of enforcements at the federal
level there were 13 charges laid in the metropolitan Toronto area
last week alone as a result of the activities relating to the export
of illegal hazardous material.
I have issued a new directive in my department. We are
moving away from the issuance of letters of warning. It will be
one strike and you are out. I intend to pursue aggressively those
polluters who would despoil our environment simply to make a
buck.
* * *
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, B.C. tribal chiefs are sending a warning shot across the
bow of the B.C. treaty process by saying there could be more
barricades this summer. They are reacting to the province of
B.C. attempts to reduce unfulfillable native expectations.
Yesterday provincial minister John Cashore called on the
federal minister to help resolve the dispute at Douglas Lake
Ranch.
Will the minister do more than facilitate negotiations as he
has already agreed to do and cut off funding to the Upper Nicola
Band until this illegal blockade is removed?
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that a mediator
was appointed by the province yesterday and he is in the process
of mediating. All the parties to the dispute have publicly called
for a peaceful resolution to this situation. I think the hon.
member should be aware of that.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, these standoffs often go on for an extended period of
time.
The federal minister has said that this is not his territory
because it is off reserve and the band is not part of the B.C. treaty
process. This is irrelevant. The barricades and this whole
process are expensive to the taxpayer and to local residents.
Will the minister assist in efforts to achieve a voluntary
removal of the blockades by insisting on removal of the funding
to the band in order to ensure compliance?
(1150)
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
The hon. member should be aware that a peaceful resolution
to this is being sought by all parties. The minister has also made
it quite clear that he is prepared to assist if asked by the
province, by the First Nations or by any other group involved but
to date we have not been asked.
* * *
Mr. Ron Fewchuk (Selkirk-Red River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The people of Canada would like to know the federal
government's involvement in dealing with the forest fires raging
in Canada and most distressingly in western Canada.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon.
member's question, a very serious situation is emerging with a
number of forest fires that are burning, in some cases out of
control, in western Canada.
Emergency Preparedness Canada has been contacted by the
provinces of British Columbia and Alberta. We have offered our
full support. Emergency Preparedness Canada under the
auspices of the Department of National Defence has already
provided a number of possible airlifts and is ready and willing to
provide more.
We are also working to mobilize the Department of Transport
where necessary. Certainly we are hoping that over the weekend
things will stabilize. We are concerned and we are offering
whatever help we can to both the provinces involved.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
On Tuesday, an Environment Canada spokesperson suggested
that the Irving Whale would only be raised high enough to slide a
submersible underneath. Yet, the solution outlined in the
government's call for tenders is to lift the barge more than 70
metres with steel cables before using a submersible.
13181
How can the minister let a spokesperson from her office give
the press information that is contrary to that contained in the
initial bidding documents?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in this matter, which
has already been dragging for some 20 years, I am following the
advice given by my hon. colleague, the hon. member for
Frontenac, on March 18, 1994-15 months ago-when he asked
us to act as soon as possible, and I quote: ``-as an ecologist and
a recognized environment specialist-this is Jean-Guy Chrétien
talking-I can only welcome this announcement. As a matter of
fact, I took an interest in the Irving Whale, a potential ecological
time-bomb, as soon as I became the opposition's environment
critic''.
Instead of complying with the hon. member's request to
further delay lifting this barge, we will go ahead. The call for
tenders has been issued, and the Irving Whale will be raised as
soon as possible.
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, I would ask you to please
refer to other members by their ridings and not by their names.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
are not asking the minister to let this matter drag on for years.
What we are asking her is to raise the Irving Whale as safely as
possible, even if it is more costly.
A spokesperson from her office indicated that two businesses
had submitted bids to refloat the Irving Whale. Since her
department has known about the bids since May 11, can the
minister tell us the prices quoted in these bids and release
immediately all bidding documents?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the House of
Commons last year I gave every single document relating to the
lifting of the Irving Whale. I also said at that time that the
proposal being pushed by the hon. member is based on a
recommendation that was done by the company that is interested
in doing the work.
We called for an independent assessment. If the member
wants, I will refer her to an opinion of Murray Fenton &
Associates Ltd., Southwark Bridge Road, London, England.
That firm has no association with the Government of Canada and
says that the option we have chosen is the best scientific option.
(1155 )
I would be very happy to table the letter so we could put the
issue to bed and get the Irving Whale out of the situation it is in,
which puts the fishermen of the Magdalen Islands at risk. I think
the hon. member and her eight colleagues on the Magdalen
Islands should stop playing politics and start doing something to
get this thing up.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
MPs' offices are constantly flooded with complaints from
law-abiding Canadians whose relatives cannot get visitor visas
to Canada. Why? Because the minister's failure to enforce
immigration law creates so much abuse that the only way to stop
it is by denying visas to decent law-abiding visitors.
Why is the minister limiting his promise of compassion to
queue jumpers and foreign criminals and not extending that
compassion to those who really suffer under Canada's
immigration laws: law-abiding Canadians, overseas refugees
and people who want to visit Canada?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Italian.]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member told me that he knew a few
words of Italian, so in the spirit of the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I
thought I would try it out.
In response to the hon. member, the reality in fact is the
opposite. The member should be somewhat respectful of the fact
that 85 per cent of all visitor visa applications, and there are
some one million around the world, are accepted by Canada.
There is a 15 per cent refusal rate. Eighty-five per cent out of
100 is not bad.
In the case where those refusals perhaps legitimately should
have been accepted, there is a procedure in place for those
individuals to make new applications. From time to time there
are also interventions. I caution however that a minister should
not intervene on a visitor visa program simply because of the
numbers involved and simply because the fact is it works quite
well.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
whether the minister speaks Italian or English, I still do not
understand the point.
The minister talks a good game. Just yesterday he bragged
about how well the New Delhi immigration office was working.
Tell that to Victor Sumbly, a well respected businessman whose
sister and nephew could not get visitor visas from Delhi. They
were told there was so much abuse that officials could not risk
giving visas to a mother and child, even though Victor offered to
post a $50,000 bond.
Would the minister be willing to meet with Mr. Sumbly and
tell him face to face that the immigration system is working just
fine?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am equally confused by the
member's approach today. Usually he gets up in the House and
asks the government to keep people out, to slam the door shut, to
keep people from coming in. Today he decides to do some
constituency work after all because there have been a lot of
13182
complaints from Canadians in Calgary, Alberta who cannot get
the time of day on immigration matters from members of
Parliament. It pleases me, finally, to see the member of
Parliament stand up for his constituents.
* * *
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the solicitor
general and the Minister of Health have recently announced the
creation of a national registry for Canadians with Alzheimer's. I
would ask the solicitor general to explain to the House the
intention of the registry. Could he tell us who is going to manage
the system and explain the government's expectations as to the
impact the registry will have on Canadians with Alzheimer's
and members of their families?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the registry is intended to help locate and identify
missing individuals with Alzheimer's or related conditions. It
will help to ensure that the risk to them because of their
condition is mitigated and limited. It will also reassure their
families and caregivers.
I am very pleased that we could work on this project together
with the Alzheimer's Society of Canada and the department of
health. The program will be managed by the Alzheimer's
Society of Canada and its branches across the country. It will use
the RCMP's Canadian police information computer system.
I think this is a wonderful example of police-community
co-operation. I am very glad that the federal government has
been able to facilitate the project.
(1200 )
The Speaker: Colleagues, this would bring to a conclusion
the question period. I have notice of a question of privilege from
the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Thank
you, Mr. Speaker. I will let you be the judge and decide whether
this is a question of privilege or a point of order, but as you
know, the matter I wish to raise is connected to the fact that
yesterday, we had the second hour of debate on a motion I
presented earlier in April in which I urged the government to
recognize same sex spouses.
I must say that yesterday, for the first time since I became a
member of Parliament, I was not very proud to be a
parliamentarian. I was not very proud because, as we know, a
few days ago the Supreme Court asked us to discuss one of the
most important issues for the future of our society, and I am
referring to equal treatment of same sex spouses.
I feel I must draw your attention to the fact that yesterday
evening, some very discriminatory, hateful and offensive
statements were made concerning the homosexual community,
and we can hardly say the homosexual community benefited
from the kind of debate we had yesterday.
My main point is, and I will give a very specific example, that
I always saw the role of the Chair as allowing a maximum of
freedom of expression, and I must say that you and your team
have always scrupulously abided by this principle. However, I
feel I must draw your attention to the fact that in the course of
the debate yesterday evening, the hon. member for Calgary
Northeast made some comparisons that were extremely
dangerous and very difficult to accept for parliamentarians, and
I think that if we do not put a stop to this and if we do not call to
order members who take the liberty of making comparisons
which I find deeply offensive between the homosexual
community and certain rights to which I am committed on their
behalf, the reputation of this institution will be tarnished.
In concluding, I simply want to bring to your attention a
comment that will give some indication of the very distressing
tenor of yesterday's debate, at least in the case of the hon.
member for Calgary Northeast. Very briefly: ``Homosexuality,
to anyone who has not been brainwashed by the last decade of
effective propagandizing by the gay lobby, is unnatural''.
I finally want to say that I am not acting on behalf of any lobby
whatsoever. In presenting a motion I felt was important, I was
acting as a parliamentarian in order to raise one of those issues
which, as you know, requires more than one debate.
In concluding, I want to say that I do not believe that in this
Parliament or anywhere else, those who are involved in
promoting gay rights have been brainwashed.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I do not believe that this is a
matter of privilege. I would ask all of you, regardless of the
topic being debated, to always make judicious word choices
because sometimes we are confronted with ideas that are not
always acceptable to all individuals.
As you know, in this House, we use strong words and express
strong opinions, and sometimes, we use unusually strong words.
But, in this instance, I have not read the record of the debate. I
will read those statements in context and will watch the video to
find out more. If necessary, I will report back to the House with
my decision on the matter.
13183
(1205)
[English]
I will look into this particular matter. To the hon. member for
Calgary Northeast, I do not want to get into a debate. We had a
debate on this yesterday.
At least at this point, it does not seem to be a question of
privilege. If the hon. member for Calgary Northeast wishes to
put something on the record very briefly I invite him to do so. I
do not want to have this escalate into a debate.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
stand by the words I issued in my statement. I did not mention
any particular person by name. That is all I will state in the
matter.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for his intervention.
[Translation]
It is not a matter of privilege, but I give the floor to the whip of
the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I trust you unconditionally to review this issue and to
listen to what was said.
To better understand the issue and put the debate in context, I
suggest that we-us parliamentarians and you the
Speaker-should consider that when we say that a community is
immoral, for example homosexuals, we are going after each and
every individual. If we were to do the same for francophones,
Jews or women in general, it would not be tolerated.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I would like to end this discussion here. As I
said, my dear colleagues, I do not want members to get into a
debate on the matter. I will take care of it, I will look into it, and
will report to the House, if necessary.
_____________________________________________
13183
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages
the government's response to 20 petitions.
* * *
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it is certainly a
relevant day, given the question that was asked by the member
from the Bloc Quebecois in the House on what we do to deal with
contaminated sites.
Today I wish to advise Parliament that as a government we are
introducing a new federal toxic substances management policy.
What we would like to do is begin with pollution prevention to
avoid the kinds of messes we saw with things like PCBs in the
past.
We do not often get up in the House to discuss complex
scientific issues involving complicated chemical compounds.
However, we also do not often discuss the need to stop poisoning
ourselves, our children, our environment, our reproductive
systems, our food chain, and our genetic make-up. We do not
often discuss how chemicals can affect the health Canadians and
the health of our environment.
Toxic substances in the air, water, soil and sediment upset the
balance of nature and jeopardize the interdependent existence of
all living things on earth.
[Translation]
The new toxics policiy I am announcing today will apply
across the scope of federal activity-not just the Department of
the Environment. The policy calls for virtual elimination from
the environment of substances that result from human activity,
that take a long time to break down, that build up in living
organisms and that are toxic.
For other substances that threaten the health of our
environment, we will implement full life cycle
management-from cradle to grave.
[English]
It is cradle to grave management for those substances.
If we cannot find the means to keep certain natural substances
from being released into the environment, we need to take
measures to prevent generation and their use by humans. Federal
laws, regulations, policies and programs will be used to turn off
the tap of release into the environment of bio-accumulative and
persistent toxic substances produced by Canadians.
(1210 )
What does that mean? It means saying no to toxins that work
their way into the food chain. It means saying no to toxins that
take too much time to break down once they are released.
[Translation]
All other substances of concern under federal jurisdiction will
face the world's strictest controls.
The new policy is based on the most advanced scientific
methods and concepts, and expert analysis, including computer
modelling and internationally accepted criteria.
13184
In making today's announcement, the government is making
public complete details of the policy and a document describing
the scientific basis and the technical criteria of the policy.
[English]
In making today's announcement, the government is making
public complete details of the policy and the document
describing the scientific basis and technical criteria of the
policy. The government is also publishing a third document
summarizing the main issues identified in eight months of
public consultations and our response to those issues.
The policy covers the complete range of toxic substances that
are used or released into the environment as a result of our
modern lifestyle. PCBs, dioxins, furans would not have been
accepted had we known their effect on human health and on the
food chain. This policy will mean that new industrial chemicals,
new pesticides, new compounds produced by biotechnology,
and new chemicals that mimic human hormones will be banned
unless they can satisfy rigorous scientific criteria. The onus will
not be on Canadians to prove that these products pose a danger.
The onus will be on the manufacturer to show that they are safe
and can be properly managed.
The bottom line is that a decision to ban new chemicals and
new products will be made on science. For existing toxic
substances that continue to pose a risk the decision to eliminate
the products from the environment will also be based on science.
We will establish targets and schedules that will take into
account social, economic, and technical considerations.
During public consultations some have made the point that
they should have the opportunity to produce additional
scientific evidence once a preliminary decision to virtually
eliminate or to stop the production of a product is made. The
government will provide that opportunity, but we will provide
the same opportunity to scientific experts, to other
governments, and to the public. For human made toxic
substances that are not persistent and do not bioaccumulate, do
not stay in the environment for a long time, actions to control
them will take into account risk management and legal,
economic, and sociological factors.
[Translation]
In simplest terms, the worst offending toxics will be gone, all
other toxics will be managed throughout their entire life-cycle.
[English]
In English we say cradle to grave management.
[Translation]
There are those who may complain that this is too tough a
policy. Tell that to people who live along dead lakes and rivers,
with deformed fish and birds. Tell that to Canadians who breathe
our country's air, till our country's soil and swim in our
country's waters.
[English]
I want to be clear that these actions apply to areas under
federal control. Many toxic substance problems in Canada fall
under the jurisdiction of the provinces and the territories; hence
my response earlier in question period on the issue of
contaminated sites. It is the federal government's intention to
use the policy we are announcing today in order to pursue a
national strategy for managing toxic substances through
discussions with the provinces and the territories.
I think here is one example where a PCB in Quebec, a PCB in
Ontario, and a PCB in British Columbia pose the same problem
for Canadians.
[Translation]
I do not approach this matter with a ``holier than thou''
attitude.
(1215)
The federal government's hands have not always been clean in
the past nor has the federal government made a determined
effort to be a world leader in controlling toxic substances.
My belief is, however, that it is in the absolute interest of
Canadians to work together to eliminate and control toxics, and,
more importantly, beacause this is what Canadians want.
[English]
We need a united Canadian strategy for dealing with the world
community. The free flow of air and water means that dangerous
substances released in one community can end up poisoning the
environment of another community a thousand kilometres away.
That is why it is important to have a Canadian policy but it also
means toxic substances produced in other countries end up
poisoning Canadians. Toxic substances in eastern Europe are
currently poisoning breast milk of mothers living in the
Canadian Arctic.
Lake Superior is probably the most virgin of the Great Lakes.
If we took all the toxins of local creation out of Lake Superior at
the moment that lake would be 20 per cent damaged as a result of
toxins that come from places that have never even heard of
Canada, places very far away where the toxins come out of the
smokestacks, get into the atmosphere, travel to the Arctic shield
and diffuse over Canada.
That is why we need not only a national strategy but an
international strategy for birds flying over our Pacific coast, fish
swimming in our Atlantic waters and people living along the St.
Lawrence and the Great Lakes.
The federal government will use the strategy and the policy
announced today as a basis for negotiations with the world
community. Next week Canada will host in Vancouver a meeting
of the world's leading experts on persistent organic pollutants.
We will co-chair the meeting with the Philippines so that we can
have the right marriage of countries of the industrialized world
as well as countries en voie de développement. International
13185
co-operation is certainly needed in areas from capacity building
to technology transfer, to the use of alternative substances.
The Government of Canada is announcing this policy for
Canadians because it is the right thing to do. In doing so I know
we are following a course directly contrary to the course
currently being advocated by members of the Congress of the
United States. Certain American Congress people are calling for
fewer controls over toxic substances. They want to release more
toxins into the St. Lawrence, into the Great Lakes, into our
oceans and other bodies of water and air we share. With the
greatest respect, that downgrading attitude by some members of
the United States Congress is dead wrong.
By this policy today Canada is sending a message to the world
and in particular to our American partners that we will do our
part to deal with toxic substances and we expect them to do
theirs.
[Translation]
When you look at the people living along Lake Champlain,
who are currently facing an ecological disaster partly because of
construction operations by the Americans, it is obvious that the
environment knows no boundaries.
By moving Canada to the forefront in managing toxics, we
can move Canada to the forefront of new businesses, new green
technologies and new green jobs. I am confident that the new
policy will serve the long term health of our economy and I
know that it will serve the health of our environment and the
health of Canadians.
[English]
On Monday I will be in Montreal opening the Biosphere
which is another tribute to the possibility for Canada to begin to
return to a country where environmental technology is not
imported but exported.
[Translation]
At the Biosphere, on Monday, you will see that with the
Biodome, the Biosphere, the environmental centre-the public
really supports this endeavour-and modern technology,
Canadian technology, we are indeed able to go ahead and
eliminate these toxic substance. But to succeed, policy and
legislation are required to speed up the process of protecting the
environment.
(1220)
[English]
We do not want to go down the road of the Americans who are
now saying this to 50 million people who drank water from the
Great Lakes. This summer we are getting into a period of
potential smog. I am sorry to say that in the United States the
current acceptable levels of smog are about 40 per cent higher
than in Canada. Who breathes that?
The Detroit-Windsor corridor sends all the stuff over to the
Canadian side and we end up losing work days because of
pollution problems caused by persistent toxins that come over
from the United States.
We want to make sure with this policy that we have our own
house in order to ensure that when we go to Vancouver next week
and when we go to the international community and in particular
when we go to our American neighbour, we will not allow the
U.S. Congress to lose the gains we have made. The action we are
taking today is a further commitment to the strategy of pollution
prevention which says we should not only focus on cleaning up
messes but make sure the messes do not occur in the first place.
This policy does not offer overnight miracles but it does
provide a solid foundation for dealing with toxic substances and
getting those persistent bioaccumulative toxins out of the
environment permanently. The need to take action is easy to
understand which is why we are moving today on a policy I think
will put us at the forefront of dealing with toxins into the 21st
century.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, every
year more than 228,000 tons of pollutants of all sorts are
dumped into Canada's waters, atmosphere, soil and sub-soil.
The cause of all this alarming dumping is simple: it is
negligence, whether on the part of careless individuals,
unscrupulous manufacturers or governments unable to halt the
flow.
I am pleased to rise and speak about the new toxic substance
management policy the Minister of the Environment is
proposing, which, I hope, will prove to be a practical response to
the problems of prolonged toxic dumping that may lead to
bioaccumulation. As I have not read the documents tabled today,
I am not in a position to express an opinion on the value of the
policy. I will therefore simply make four general comments
expressing the concerns and worries I have about the minister's
speech.
First, I would like to point out that I find it rather surprising
the minister is tabling her new policy even before the standing
committee of this House has issued its report, due in a few days,
on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The minister
would definitely have benefited from the committee's work,
which took a year's time and which enabled many witnesses to
express their concerns and suggest solutions with regard to the
problem of managing toxic substances.
13186
Second, the minister alluded earlier to the principle of
reverse onus. According to her, manufacturers will now have
to prove that their products are safe and may be properly
managed. This principle, which the Bloc supports without
hesitation, arises from another, very simple one: caution. The
idea of caution is relatively new in environmental matters; up
to now, it has not been a particular concern for governments,
including this one. I offer as evidence the minister's
unspeakable attitude in the matter of the barge, the Irving
Whale, which may well spill its contents of 3,100 tonnes of oil.
The minister's decision was clearly motivated by a desire to
limit operating costs, as her officials have said publicly, which
flies in the face of the most elementary caution.
I hope the minister, whose rhetoric is full of fine principles,
will have the courage and the influence in Cabinet to apply them
uniformly and not only when it suits her.
(1225)
My third comment has to do with the way the minister intends
to deal with the provinces in the future. Even though she admits
that her new policy only applies to the federal areas of
jurisdiction, she states, and I quote: ``It is the federal
government's intention to use the policy that we are announcing
today in order to pursue a national strategy for managing toxic
substances''.
I will remind the minister that, whether she likes it or not, the
environment is a shared area of jurisdiction, in which provinces
have a determinant role to play. They should and must not be
treated as second class actors in the federal plans. Before talking
about national standards, the minister should give tangible
evidence of the efficiency of her policy. Obviously, an
aggressive approach by the federal government will only lead to
counterproductive confrontations.
Finally, I notice that the minister is once again boasting that
she wants to make Canada a world leader in environmental
matters. The Bloc Quebecois and myself have every right to
question such a statement and fear that it is just so much hot air.
Indeed, the last time the minister said that she wanted to make of
Canada a world leader, she was presenting her plan to reduce
greenhouse gases which, as we know, was far from
revolutionary.
This very morning, The Ottawa Citizen reported that the
Sierra Club gave the Prime Minister an admonition to give
marching orders to his Cabinet on the reduction of carbon
dioxide emissions.
I humbly remind the minister that Quebecers and Canadians
are not necessarily demanding to become world leaders; all they
want are realistic environment policies yielding real and
tangible results.
In conclusion, I can understand the minister's desire to
improve the management of toxic substances in Canada. In fact,
the World Wide Fund for Nature reports that the port of
Hamilton is one the most polluted areas in the Great Lakes. The
sewage treatment plants located there are not equipped to
properly process the waste from surrounding industries and
generate close to 40 per cent of the PCB burden and 10 per cent
of the zinc burden in the port. According to the World Wide Fund
for Nature, decades of pollution in Hamilton have completely
ruined what used to be first class spawning grounds for many
fish species.
I hope that the policy proposed by the Minister of the
Environment will enable us to find efficient remedies to solve an
environmental dilemma we can no longer ignore.
[English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to reply to the environment
minister's policy statement on toxic substances management.
I listened very closely to the minister's speech and for the
most part I agree that toxic substances in air, water, soil and
sediment will jeopardize the existence of all living things. I
agree that if toxic substances are not brought under control
Canada's environment will suffer. Action should be taken
immediately rather than later.
However, I do not agree with the halting path the minister has
chosen. The minister's policy applies only to areas under federal
control. While the federal problem is a serious concern, another
problem does exist, those industries in the private sector, those
currently under provincial jurisdiction.
This is the continuing problem with this minister and her
department. She introduces policy after policy which might be
described as nothing but fluff. In other words, they sound great
but the implementation is later evaluated as disappointing.
She never seems to get to the core of the problem of some of
our biggest polluters. Perhaps there is a reason. Perhaps it is
more political than sensible.
In late April of this year Environment Canada released a
national pollutant release inventory, an extensive list of
Canada's worst polluters of toxic chemicals. Among the list
were some very large companies, primarily from the hub of
Ontario as well as Montreal.
The country's biggest polluter was Kronos Canada in
Montreal, which dumped 66,000 tonnes of sulphuric acid into
the water. Another large pollutant was benzine. A total of 3,000
tonnes of benzine was released countrywide by steel and
chemical manufacturers. Interestingly enough, Dofasco and
Stelco Steel in Hamilton combined 882 tonnes, 29.4 per cent of
the total amount of benzine released in 1993; two large
companies right smack in the middle of the minister's riding.
Any political handler would say to the minister stay away from
that issue. Where is the integrity? Where is the will? One of the
country's worst polluters of a toxic chemical is in the
environment minister's backyard and the minister does not want
to touch it with a ten-foot pole.
13187
(1230)
How can she claim to be environmentally friendly? If the
minister were a true friend of the environment she would put
politics aside and take action in cleaning up the plants that grace
her riding. What this country does not need are politicians who
think first about how things appear for the political image and
second about real benefits to Canadians. We just need to get on
with it.
This polluters list tells us where the polluters are. Well that is
fine. Canadians know where they are. What they want to know is
how they are going to be dealt with. Canadians want actions, not
just another data base.
I will read an interesting quote from the minister regarding
this data base: ``It is intended to encourage industries to
voluntarily reduce their releases and develop pollution
prevention plans''. This is coming from a minister who is
supporting Bill S-7, which will legislate government
departments into increasing the number of automobiles using
alternative fuels, even though the Treasury Board already has
guidelines for them to do so.
The minister is not promising miracles with this policy today.
One does not have to be a genius to figure that out. The clean up
of federal contaminated sites will be no small task. In the last
auditor general's report it was estimated that there are 2,000 to
3,000 potentially contaminated federal sites, of which 500 to
1,000 would require immediate remediation. The projected cost
was a minimum of about a billion dollars. The auditor general's
report also mentioned that a high priority should be to clean up
all federal PCB sites, at a cost of perhaps $2 billion.
This policy paper does not clearly outline how it will clean up
these sites. It does not determine where the money will come
from, and it does not state a deadline when all federal sites
should be toxic free. I think the minister clearly has some
questions to answer.
Further, with this policy we find out that the one who is going
to be overseeing the policy will be the commissioner of the
environment and sustainable development, the office of the
auditor general. The federal government does not seem to listen
to what the auditor general says now, so what will change with
the commissioner, who will only report to the auditor general?
The minister says that Canada is sending a message to the
world that we will do our part to deal with toxic substances. How
can a strong message be sent when we are only dealing with half
the problem?
Whenever the government initiates something new, it never
changes the whole picture substantively. It never wants to get
serious with the issues that mainstream Canadians want. Take
the federal budget, for example. Canadians wanted a zero deficit
plan and the government gave us a fraction of a dent to the
deficit and no long term hope.
Another example is the Young Offenders Act. Canadians
wanted a tougher, more accountable law. Yet the justice minister
gave Canadians a watered down bill. Now we have this policy
paper, which the environment minister thinks represents a solid
foundation for dealing with toxic substances.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act sounds good, but
in practice has not been sufficiently delivered. The Standing
Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development
will soon be tabling its recommendations to improve CEPA. I
hope the minister will take heed.
We have a fisheries minister who advertises his defence of
Atlantic fish. Who in the government is defending the Fraser
River basin and the salmon of the Pacific coast?
The Reform Party is not against control of toxic substances.
Quite the contrary. What we are saying is if there is a problem,
and in this case the minister has admitted there is, deal with the
problem comprehensively and not just a fraction of it.
I do not have some great scheme of how we could get
industries like Dofasco and Stelco to reduce or eliminate their
benzene dumping tomorrow. Then again I do not have thousands
of employees at Environment Canada to work for me on this one
either.
Cleaning up Canada's environment is a priority of the Reform
Party and it is a priority of the minister. However, do not do it
with a policy statement that federal departments can continue to
ignore. Do it with legislation that is binding and that has some
real bite.
* * *
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present in both official languages the fourth report
of the Standing Committee on Transport.
Pursuant to order of reference of Tuesday, May 16, 1995, your
committee has considered Bill C-89, an act to provide for the
continuance of the Canadian National Railway Company under
the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and
sale of shares of the company to the public, and has agreed to
report it without amendment.
* * *
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present in both
official languages the sixth report of the Standing Committee on
Natural Resources, concerning Bill S-7, better known as the
Kenny bill, an act to accelerate the use of alternative fuels for
motor vehicles, with amendments.
13188
(1235 )
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table
the document pursuant to the speech I just gave. I neglected to
table the document entitled ``Toxic Substances Management
Policy'', the report on the consultations and La politique de
gestion des substances toxiques.
The Deputy Speaker: It will take unanimous consent to do
that. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-329, an act to provide for the recognition of
the Canadian horse as the national horse of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce a private
member's bill today entitled ``An Act to provide for the
recognition of the Canadian horse as the national horse of
Canada''.
This bill will bring widespread attention to a national symbol,
the Canadian horse. This horse was introduced to Canada in
1665 by the King of France, who sent horses from his own
stables to the people of his North American colony.
The Canadian horse is well known for its strength, endurance,
resiliance, intelligence and good temper that distinguishes the
breed.
I invite all members of the House to support this bill, which
will bring well deserved attention to this cherished Canadian
symbol.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition that
has been circulating across Canada. This portion of the petition
comes from the area of Calgary, Alberta.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the
House that managing the family home and caring for preschool
children is an honourable profession, which has not been
recognized for its value to our society. They also state that the
Income Tax Act discriminates against families who make the
choice to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to
pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against
families who do decide to provide care in the home for preschool
children, the disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have four petitions, three of which I will present
orally.
The first petition deals with violence on television. The
undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call on Parliament to
ensure that the CRTC recognizes that Canadians do not need to
be shocked to be entertained. Foul language, excessive violence,
and explicit sex are not necessary to provide quality
entertainment.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition contains 112 signatures and calls on
Parliament not to enact any legislation that would allow
doctor-assisted suicide.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the third petition has to do with gun control. It calls on
Parliament to reject this legislative proposal, Bill C-68, and to
direct the Minister of Justice to reconsider his approach to this
entire issue.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the fourth petition is not from my constituents
exclusively. The majority of the petitioners are from other parts
of Canada.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present
a petition from citizens of the province of Alberta. They are
concerned about making their streets safe and are opposed to the
early release of violent offenders.
The petitioners urge the government to allow reclassification
of offenders as dangerous after sentencing, allow indefinite
detention of dangerous offenders, and allow violent offenders to
be ineligible for parole.
13189
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition from 42 of my constituents. Basically they are
concerned about access to children by grandparents.
The petitioners ask that the Divorce Act be amended in such a
way that in no case may a father or mother without serious cause
place obstacles between the child and grandparents. It goes on to
talk about giving them access to the child, the right to make
inquiries and to be given information as to the health, education,
and welfare of the child.
(1240 )
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present three petitions.
In total there are 1,290 signatures.
The petitioners are opposed to further gun control legislation
and want to go on record as asking the justice minister to deal
with the criminal use of firearms rather than registration.
Mr. Ron Fewchuk (Selkirk-Red River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour today to present two petitions on behalf of the
constituents of my riding of Selkirk-Red River in Manitoba.
In the first petition my constituents pray that Parliament
continue to reject euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada.
Mr. Ron Fewchuk (Selkirk-Red River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in the second petition my constituents pray and request that
Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian
Human Rights Act, or the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms to include the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
according to Standing Order 36, I rise to present two petitions.
The first petition is signed by almost 1,000 people, the majority
coming from Yellowhead.
The petitioners call on Parliament to support legislation that
would repeal and modify existing gun control laws, which have
not improved public safety, have proven not to be cost effective,
or have proven to be overly complex so as to be ineffective
and/or unenforceable.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition I am pleased to present on behalf of Mr. Ken Rij
of Evansburg, which is in the riding of Yellowhead.
The petitioners request that Parliament not amend a code, act,
or charter in any way that would tend to indicate societal
approval to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination
the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the following question will be
answered today: No. 139.
[Text]
Question No. 139-Mr. Karygiannis:
With respect to the Interstate Unemployment Insurance Claims agreement
since 1992 (a) how many non-Canadian citizens living outside of Canada have
received benefits, (b) how much has been received by these beneficiaries, (c) how
much was collected in U.I. premiums from these people, (d) in what states do the
recipients live and (e) how many of the U.I. recipients collected maternity,
parental, or sickness benefits?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): The available data on interstate claims
including those made by Canadians residing in USA for 1992,
1993 and 1994 revealed the following:
![](/web/20061117183458im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen2104x01_r0.gif)
Revenue Canada requires 25 per cent of the benefit amount be
retained at source for income tax. The total number of claims
represents the actual number of claims received but not the
number of claimants who actually were eligible for benefits.
This information is not readily available. We have no available
data to distinguish if the recipients are non-Canadians, or their
state(s) of residence.
Revenue Canada taxation does not require that employers
report premiums per individual social insurance number.
Therefore we cannot specify how much was collected from these
recipients. We do not have statistics on the claim types such as
maternity, parental or sickness benefits.
Historically the volume of such claims has been too minimal
to warrant the design of computer programming to keep such
detailed information as requested.
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
13190
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that
pursuant to Standing Order 33, because of the ministerial
statement, Government Orders will be extended by 26 minutes.
_____________________________________________
13190
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-75, an act to amend the Farm Improvement and Marketing
Co-operatives Loans Act, be read the third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. House leader of the Reform
Party has 27 minutes remaining in his available time.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I will assure you that I will be very brief and not
need anywhere near that time, as I was in the process of
concluding my remarks when I was interrupted.
The priority of governments should be to get out of the
business of being in business, which includes the granting of
funds, the involvement in megaprojects and things such as
FIMCLA and guaranteeing loans to small business.
What I was saying in conclusion was that the priorities of
governments should be first to get out of the business of granting
handouts, whether they be to business or special interest groups.
Second, governments should not be in the business of being
involved in megaprojects, even to the point of loan guarantees;
they should not be involved in loan guarantees for small
business and agriculture, and their priorities in getting out
should be in that order.
The reason they should be in that order is because small
business and farmers are supporting the granting of funds
through their tax dollars. They are supporting loan guarantees
that go bad to megaprojects such as the Lloydminster upgrader
and those types of megaprojects. Hibernia is another example
that comes to mind. It is the farmers and the small businessmen
who are paying for the folly of government getting involved in
these projects. Programs like FIMCLA should not be the first
ones to go; they should be the last ones to be withdrawn. That is
the direction in which we have to go.
(1245 )
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, miracles
never seem to happen to me in this House. I listened to the
Reform Party go on and on, its members first stating they
support the bill. They then spent almost all of their time saying
why it was not such a good idea. I am a little confused by that
approach. It seems they are saying government should not assist
farmers.
Almost one in five workers in the Durham area are farmers
with 3,500 families who either directly or indirectly owe their
living to agriculture. The people of Durham very much
appreciate the federal government's commitment to assist them
in the capitalization of their farming operations.
Sometimes there is a lot of confusion in the House about what
farmers do and the types of operations they run. Many members
have talked about how other forms of capital are available to
farmers, that lending institutions could take up the slack. That is
not true. The Farm Credit Corporation and this program came
into existence because the government recognized that
problems within our capital markets prevent access to capital by
not only small businesses but farmers in particular.
Farming is a capital intensive business. I could probably
equate it with a utilities company. Everything done in farming
involves substantial capital: equipment, the farm property,
barns. Utilities are probably the closest example of similar
operations that require capital over long periods of time.
Our lending institutions are often only interested in short term
loans, which creates a disequilibrium in the capital markets.
That is why this is an area government should be involved in. I
know many of my farm constituents are very happy the federal
government is part of this process.
I would like to speak about some of the specific aspects of Bill
C-75. Some members have expressed concern over questions of
overlap and duplication with the provinces. Only two provinces
have similar programs, Quebec and Alberta. These are the two
provinces where activity under FIMCLA has shown its greatest
growth. The arguments about duplication being bad come from
the very provinces that have utilized this system the most.
I heard some of my colleagues in the Bloc talking about how it
was a failure. Interestingly enough, loan applications in Quebec
went from 142 in 1990-91 to 1,700 in 1994-95. This is a
success, hardly a failure. That growth has been largely a result of
caisse populaire Desjardins' movement to become a lender
under the program. In Alberta, the provincial government's
treasury branches now offer FIMCLA loans and concentrate its
resources in other areas. The concept of duplication is not real in
this case.
Within the federal government we have to consider the
different roles FIMCLA, Farm Credit Corporation and the Small
Businesses Loans Act play. Of these FIMCLA is the only
national loan program that can be accessed by farmers and
farmer-owner marketing co-ops because FIMCLA loans are
available from the six major banks. There are banks in almost all
of our communities but there is not an FCC office in all
communities. Similarly, the Small Businesses Loans Act is
really oriented toward small business operations as opposed to
farmers although farmers can also access this program.
13191
Every rural centre has a bank or credit union but not all have
FCC offices. In addition, the Farm Credit Corporation does not
guarantee loans made by competing commercial lenders. Those
lenders would not likely welcome audits by the FCC as is
required under FIMCLA. So there is really no way FIMCLA
could be offered by the FCC.
(1250 )
It has also been suggested that FIMCLA should be
amalgamated with the Small Businesses Loans Act. The
problem with this idea is that the FIMCLA loss ratio is
significantly less than the SBLA program. Most FIMCLA loans
are made to establish farm operations because assets taken as
security for FIMCLA loans generally have a higher disposable
value.
This gets back to what I was originally saying. Farms are
highly capitalized, therefore they also have capital to put up for
credit purposes more so than to some smaller type businesses.
As a consequence there are fewer loan loss provisions. It would
be unfair to charge farmers higher interest rates and registration
fees to subsidize small business loan losses.
In addition, most commercial lenders have segregated their
commercial lending and agricultural lending divisions.
Government loan guarantee programs currently mirror this
structure.
FIMCLA gives farmers a better interest rate than they could
normally get and allows them borrowing credit with only 20 per
cent equity. In other words, they have the ability to get up to 80
per cent financing on their assets.
Finally, there has been some confusion about the meaning of
the loan cap. The legislation provides that the total amount of
the loans registered over a rolling five-year period will not
exceed $1.5 billion. This legislation is really quite simple in that
it doubles the cap, increasing the total cap to $3 billion within
the program.
The parliamentary secretary was saying earlier that we were
quickly approaching that cap. If we do not pass this legislation
shortly we will have to curtail the program. I can assure
members that as the spring work continues on the farms that
some farmers would be unduly penalized if for some reason this
legislation did not continue.
I repeat, this is the total amount of loans registered over the
five-year period. It is not the total amount of loans outstanding
because at any one time repayments have already been made on
the loans registered in the first four years of the period.
In other words, it is a total loan application. Loans come and
go. The total exposure of the government is substantially less
than even $1.5 billion today or $3 billion in the future as we
increase the cap.
The government's liability on the program is for defaults.
Historically these have been very low, around 1 to 1.5 per cent. I
can assure members that this is a very significant loan loss
provision. It tells members a lot about our farm communities. It
tells you that these people pay their bills. In spite of the fact that
they are highly capitalized, and they do have a high debt
structure, once again it is because of their type of operations.
I know this quite well because I actually farmed at one time. I
can tell members that every time there was an extra dollar on the
farm, it seemed to go back into some form of equipment. This is
why farmers are highly exposed when borrowing.
I understand that all the parties I have heard of today are still
in support of this legislation. I encourage members to pass it
forthwith.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the
member for Durham would comment on a couple of matters. I
ask his views.
Earlier this morning, the member for Frontenac from the Bloc
Quebecois made the statement that he did not feel that the
minister of agriculture could represent farmers from the
province of Quebec because he was not as fluent in both official
languages as some other people might be. Does the member for
Durham agree we must be totally fluent in both official
languages to represent each other?
The member for Frontenac certainly professes to know about
agriculture in Canada. I feel that I know a fair bit about
agriculture. We may or may not be as fluent in languages as we
would like to be.
(1255 )
I compliment the member for Durham on his comments when
he explained to the House, and hopefully the member for
Frontenac understands the point he was making, that there are a
number of management tools and different types of loans that
need to be available to primary producers and co-operatives in
Canada. One is the Farm Credit Corporation, which is used for
land purchases and other major purchases along that line.
Another example is the farm improvement or the FIMCLA loans
which are usually used for renovations, improving buildings or
buying pieces of equipment which are important and can be
major.
Does the hon. member agree that we need these types of
vehicles? I question the sincerity of the member for Frontenac
when he says this is a duplication. They are different tools
serving different purposes.
13192
Could the member for Durham comment on those two issues?
Mr. Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
My experience with the farm community is they can use as
much help as they can get. Farmers often tell us that they are not
getting enough access to capital and they wish the government
would do more.
It seems incredible to me that the member for Frontenac
would try to minimize the amount of access that the farm
community in Quebec has to the financial institutions in that
province.
Farmers can never have enough. The more people who are
active in the business of financing farms the better. Certainly the
federal government has shown for as long as I can remember its
commitment to farming from sea to sea. I do not believe that the
farmers of Quebec would want to lose that benefit.
The second point that the hon. member made was the concept
that people cannot be represented here because of one language
or another. I do not apologize but I am unilingual English. I have
attempted to learn French from time to time but I have not been
very successful. I guess I am not a good scholar in languages.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food represents all the
farmers of Canada and has done so ever since I have been here.
He has been to the GATT and NAFTA negotiations. I know he
negotiates in the best interest of Canada from sea to sea to sea,
which includes those interests which affect the farmers of
Quebec.
I am very honoured that the minister of agriculture represents
the agricultural community as well as he does. He has a very
balanced approach. He very much tries to balance the interests
of the agricultural sector in Quebec within the country as he
does with all provinces. I have heard him on numerous times
talking about a balanced approach, that we do not trade off one
sector of commodities against another. That is nothing but good
for Quebec and Canada and the operations of stable agricultural
markets within our country.
I must confess I do not know the name of the agriculture
minister in Quebec. I do not know the one in Ontario either. The
one I do know is the federal minister of agriculture who
represents us so well.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
(1300 )
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the Minister of Transport) moved
that Bill C-81, an act to amend an act respecting the Buffalo and
Fort Erie Public Bridge Company, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been
discussions between the parties. I believe you will find there is
unanimous consent to deal with the bill this afternoon at second
reading, at committee of the whole and at third reading.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Maloney: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to
speak this afternoon on Bill C-81, an act to amend an act
respecting the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Company,
which is the formal name of what we in southern Ontario and
western New York State refer to as the Peace bridge authority.
I will give a little background on the Peace bridge authority.
The authority was incorporated in 1923 under a special act of
Parliament, following which the construction of the
international bridge commenced in 1925 and was completed in
1927. An act respecting the Buffalo and Fort Erie Bridge
Company was enacted in 1934. It empowered the authority to
acquire, hold and manage the property and assets within Canada.
The authority owns and operates the Peace bridge and has 10
appointed members, five Canadian and five American. The
authority is profitable and has no outstanding long term debt. It
is self sufficient with any profits being used to improve and
maintain the facility.
The Peace bridge and this act is very important to Fort Erie,
the Niagara peninsula, the province of Ontario and Canada as a
whole. The Peace bridge is located at the Niagara River crossing
between Buffalo, New York and Fort Erie, Ontario. It is the
second busiest cross-border highway link between Canada and
the United States. More than 300 million vehicles have crossed
the bridge since it opened in 1927.
In 1994 the bridge carried nearly eight million vehicles. Over
one million or 14 per cent of these were trucks. It is estimated
that $65 million worth of trade crosses the bridge daily.
As a result of continued expansion and development of
international trade and traffic between the province of Ontario
and the eastern United States, passenger car traffic and freight
truck and other commercial traffic over the Peace bridge into
and from Ontario has steadily increased over the years.
Commercial traffic increased to 975,000 vehicles in 1993, an
increase of 5.8 per cent when compared to 1992. When
comparing 1992 to 1991, commercial traffic increased by 11.6
per cent.
In recent years particularly increases in traffic flow have
accelerated due to regional and economic factors and
international agreements between the two countries, including
but not limited to the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, the
North American free trade agreement and GATT. This has
resulted in substantial increases in congestion on the bridge and
the adjacent Peace bridge plazas.
13193
Congestion is now at the point where it is not uncommon for
traffic to back up on and sometimes across the entire bridge to
and from Canada. This has resulted in substantial traffic tie-ups
on the Queen Elizabeth highway and on local streets in Fort Erie
as well as similar problems on the New York State thruway, the
Peace bridge plazas and on local streets in Buffalo. The
congestion problems presently being experienced on the bridge
will only increase in the future.
To improve traffic flow, the authority plans to implement a
10-year $89 million capital improvement project called the
gateway project. This project will have a positive economic
impact on both sides of the border.
In Fort Erie alone over $58 million will be spent on
improvements that include: $11.6 million for a new commercial
facility for Canada bound commercial traffic which will house
Revenue Canada's commercial customs operations, commercial
brokers and freight package firms; another $25 million on a
commercial vehicle processing centre for U.S. bound
commercial vehicles; and another $4.3 million for a Canadian
gateway complete with new customs booths that will serve as a
landmark for residents and tourists entering Canada. It truly will
be a gateway to Canada, a gateway to the province of Ontario
and a gateway to my riding of Erie.
A further $17.6 million will be spent on bridge painting and
structural improvements. The bridge is presently painted with a
lead based paint which must be removed for environmental
reasons. It will be expensive, but is very necessary.
On the U.S. side there will be upgrading of the traffic plaza
and the Buffalo terminus to the bridge which will include a
reconfigured plaza providing improved access to major
highways and into downtown Buffalo.
It can be appreciated that these proposals will translate into
short term construction jobs and long term administrative jobs
with a tremendous economic spin off impact throughout the
region.
The bill also allows for a borrowing increase for the current
projects that I have just mentioned. The amendments to the act
will allow the authority to increase its borrowing authority from
$50 million to $100 million. The authority's reputable financial
adviser has reviewed the financial plans of the authority and has
indicated that it has the capacity to borrow this sum of money.
(1305)
I would like to emphasize that there are no costs to the
Canadian government associated with the amendments. Section
6 of the current act specifically protects the government from
liability for the authority's debt in the event of a default. All
borrowing costs will be borne by the users of this facility.
I was concerned with the user pay implications for my
constituents as we now enjoy very reasonable bridge tolls on the
Peace bridge. Tolls will have to be increased to fund the
necessary bridge improvements. I am assured however that they
will remain competitive with tolls charged at other international
bridge crossings in the Niagara region and southern Ontario.
The Peace bridge authority is very sensitive to this issue.
Presently the passenger tolls are the cheapest of all bridge
crossings in the Niagara region. Owners of commercial vehicles
will continue to pay slightly higher tolls than those charged at
the adjacent crossings. They will benefit from reduced costs
resulting from the shorter line ups at the border. The authority is
fully cognizant that excessively high tolls would divert traffic to
other crossings and will act accordingly.
I was also concerned about the debt servicing of these loans
and the ability of the authority to meet its financial obligations. I
have been assured that the authority's debt repayment plan is
sound. The need for this government to satisfy its concerns on
this issue and on the environmental impact are the reasons for an
almost one year indepth study and the necessary delay of this
bill getting to the floor of the House. This government has acted
cautiously and prudently.
I was very concerned about the environmental impact of the
proposed capital project as well, but my concerns have been
satisfied. Pursuant to section 5 of the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act, the bridge is not required to be subjected to a
specific federal environmental assessment.
Given the potential impact of a commercial vehicle
processing centre project on adjacent neighbourhoods in the
town of Fort Erie and the fact that all transborder functions are a
clear federal responsibility, Transport Canada completed an
environmental screening of the commercial vehicle project in
November 1994. The environmental screening determined that
the commercial vehicle project may proceed as its
environmental impact is either insignificant or mitigable with
known technology. The authority has agreed to comply with the
recommended mitigation measures. The commercial vehicle
processing centre also meets all local, regional and provincial
land use and environmental requirements which I think is very
important.
Consequently, the decision to increase the borrowing power
and transfer administrative powers will have no adverse
environmental impact. Other initiatives under the gateway
project will be assessed if need be in accordance with the
requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
13194
The legislation before us today also deals with the issue of
future requests for increases in borrowing. This legislation
gives the governor in council the power to fix the authority's
borrowing limit at an amount greater than $100 million if a
need can be shown. We can avoid the need for future legislative
amendments which become costly and time consuming and are
basically administrative in nature.
This administrative change will give the Peace bridge
authority additional flexibility to meet more immediate
operational needs and future major capital requirements. The
simplified procedure will be more responsive for the Peace
bridge authority.
The reduced time required to authorize an increase in the
borrowing limit will also be less costly for taxpayers. Any
increases of this nature will still be thoroughly reviewed before
authorization by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of
Transport. As a matter of note, such review would also be
undertaken in the state of New York.
The act also provides for a transfer of authority. It is
understood that the Minister of Transport has the prime
responsibility in co-ordinating the role for federal policy on the
international crossings. Of all the international bridge
crossings, the Peace Bridge is the only one that comes under the
authority of the Minister of Finance. This change therefore is an
administrative rationalization. The transfer of legislative
responsibility between ministers will correct what can be
referred to as an administrative anomaly, as it is understood that
the Minister of Transport again has the primary responsibility.
There are currently 24 international highway crossings
between Canada and the United States. The Minister of
Transport is directly involved in three that are federally
controlled: the seaway, Thousand Islands and Blue Water
bridges. Furthermore, some of these international crossings
combine rail functions which are also the responsibility of the
Minister of Transport.
It should be pointed out that Transport Canada assumes
certain responsibilities associated with all 24 international
crossings, such as policy directives, system planning, granting
of construction and operating permits, environmental
assessments and as previously mentioned, ownership in certain
cases.
These activities are being co-ordinated and more often than
not are being carried out jointly with our U.S. counterpart, the
federal Secretary of Transportation, who shares similar
responsibilities. In fact, in the United States all international
crossing matters are dealt with through the International Bridge
Act of 1972. It authorizes the United States president, secretary
of state and secretary of transportation to negotiate, co-ordinate
and sign international agreements in order to allow these
crossings to be built, operated and maintained.
(1310 )
Therefore, transferring responsibility to the Minister of
Transport will result in streamlining the relationship between
the minister and the various bridge operators, whether private or
public, dedicated public authority or provincial government. It
will also facilitate the process of dealing with our U.S.
counterparts. As well it will indicate to Canadians that this
government is committed to efficiencies in public
administration.
Henceforth, both the New York state and U.S. federal
governments will be able to deal more effectively through the
Minister of Transport. The minister and his U.S. counterpart
meet regularly, particularly as a result of the North American
free trade agreement, in order to facilitate the transborder
movement of people and goods. International crossings are
often a priority topic at these meetings.
The transfer of responsibility to the Minister of Transport will
indicate to the various bridge operators that the current
Transport Canada policy of promoting and supporting
decentralized commercialized operations will be maintained
and enhanced.
I will not say that these initiatives have been without their
opponents who legitimately questioned debt servicing concerns
and the environmental impact on adjacent neighbourhoods,
especially as it relates to noise and pollution. In particular, the
residents whose homes will border on the commercial vehicle
processing centre had some very real concerns. I am satisfied
that these concerns have been met.
I urge the authority notwithstanding to take its role as a
community partner very seriously and to be mindful of its
responsibilities to these community concerns. To date it has met
these responsibilities and I am confident it will continue to do
so.
There is no doubt in my mind that these upgrades and new
facilities are urgently required. The planned improvements of
the gateway project will speed the movement of traffic,
particularly trucks, across the bridge. Streamlining the flow of
bona fide cross border traffic is in keeping with the more
liberalized international trade environment under the NAFTA.
The importance of cross border trade in our community is
enormous. The benefits of these improvements will be felt
throughout the region, throughout the province and throughout
our country.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-81 is the bill before us.
The Buffalo and Fort Erie Bridge Company is a company
formed by the Government of Canada in co-operation with the
Government of the United States. The increased traffic on the
international bridge resulting from the free trade agreement,
which, it will be remembered, the Liberals opposed vigorously
at the time, has now necessitated construction work.
13195
The bill will accordingly allow the company to borrow up
to $100 million on the private market through bond issues. This
$100 million will help to pay for part of the Gateway project-a
ten year $144 million project. Construction is planned on both
sides of the border. It should be noted that the Government of
Canada does not guarantee the $100 million loans.
Theoretically, then, these loans are not binding on the
Government of Canada.
The need to increase the borrowing power of the company will
also enable the government to correct an anomaly. This bridge is
the only one to come under the authority of the Minister of
Finance. All the other international cross-border highways are
the responsibility of the Minister of Transport, and the bill
assigns him responsibility for this bridge as well.
A third aspect of this bill is that in order to facilitate future
increases in the borrowing power of the Buffalo and Fort Erie
Public Bridge Company, the governor in council is authorized
by this bill to increase the borrowing limit.
It should be noted that the bridge authority must cover its
expenses and that moneys spent to improve the bridge will be
recovered through an increase in traffic and tolls.
For all these reasons, we support this bill, all the more so
because the Bloc Quebecois has always supported the
liberalization of trade and the NAFTA. The increased traffic on
the bridge is a good example of the economic benefit to both
countries of this liberalization. In opposing the free trade
agreement, the Liberals showed at that time that they were
unable to take economic decisions that would benefit Canada.
(1315)
By proposing legislation in this House today that would help
the bridge handle the increase in traffic resulting from this
agreement that they so vigorously opposed, the Liberals are
making amends, and in the same spirit I would be prepared to let
bygones be bygones.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure today to inform the House the Reform Party is
supporting Bill C-81.
The bill amends the act for the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public
Bridge Company, the company responsible for the Peace bridge
linking Fort Erie and Canada with the city of Buffalo in the
United States.
The Peace bridge is the second busiest border crossing
highway link between Canada and the United States. This bridge
carried nearly 8 million vehicles in 1994. One million of these
were trucks containing over $20 billion of traded goods.
With the implementation of our trade agreements and as a
result of positive economic conditions, the Peace bridge finds
itself not quite up to the task of facilitating smooth traffic flows.
Commercial traffic has accelerated to the point where there is
a lot of congestion on the bridge and at the adjacent plazas. This
has caused traffic jams on the access roads and local streets on
both sides of the border.
To ensure the bridge can facilitate all trade and traffic, the
bridge authority would like to implement bridge improvements
called the gateways project.
To finance the gateways project, the bridge authority intends
to market two 30-year bond issues in the United States totalling
$70 million in 1995 and 1997. It will use its toll revenue to
service this debt.
We in the Reform Party recognize that strong north-south
infrastructure links are crucial to building on trade agreements
we have implemented with United States.
If these infrastructure projects can be financed by the private
sector, so much the better. It is our understanding that the bridge
authority is profitable and has no long term outstanding debt. It
is also our understanding that the government is protected from
liability should the bridge authority ever default on debts in the
future.
Since the federal government is not financially responsible
for the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Company, it is
appropriate for the governor in council to approve borrowing
increases.
In the future we will have to look at a different way of
financing these projects. There will have to be more
infrastructure financed by the private sector, by municipalities,
as we cannot sustain these from the federal government. That
would be looking down the road and I hope that approach could
be used.
The other reservation we have is that the bridge authority
should be held accountable in its meetings to the public. If
various parties want to present briefs on the effects of toll
increases or any environmental concerns, these briefs should be
available to the public.
With this reservation, the Reform Party would support the
bill.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
13196
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in
committee, reported and concurred in by unanimous consent.)
(1320 )
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.)
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, an
agreement could not be reached under the provisions of
Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to report stage and
third reading stage of Bill C-76, an act to implement certain
provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27,
1995.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) I give notice
that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a
motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the
consideration and disposal of proceedings at said stages.
The Deputy Speaker: Returning to Bill C-81.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
position taken by the members of the opposition parties on this
measure. The co-operation exhibited here is something to be
commended.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
The Deputy Speaker: Is there consent to call it 1.56 p.m?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed in today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
13196
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, and as the anniversary of the original
Official Languages Act approaches (1969-1994), the government should
thoroughly assess the way the act is applied in Canada by appointing some
individual to carry out a detailed and balanced review of the work done so far,
and reaffirm Parliament's commitment to a just and adequate policy on official
languages.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to
begin debate on this private member's motion which calls for a
review of the Official Languages Act.
This motion may seem familiar to members, and so it should.
It originally appeared on the order of precedence last fall as
M-107. At that time it was sponsored by Ottawa-Vanier MP
Jean-Robert Gauthier who, as we know, has since moved on to
the other place.
When Mr. Gauthier answered the call from above his worthy
motion was dropped from the order of precedence. More than
likely Mr. Gauthier and I have different motives for bringing
this motion forward. The fact that I have chosen to do so speaks
to the credibility of the motion and the widely held view that the
Official Languages Act is not working as it was intended.
(1325)
The Reform Party supports individual bilingualism but we
oppose enforced bilingualism as dictated by the Official
Languages Act. We would replace the Official Languages Act
with legislation reflecting the philosophy of territorial
bilingualism. We believe the primary responsibility for
language and culture should rest with the provinces. Parliament
and other key federal government institutions would continue to
offer bilingual services.
Why do I say the act is not working? A quick look at the
Commissioner of Official Languages 1994 annual report
provides us with some insight into this claim. According to the
commissioner our audits showed that French does not have
equitable status as a language of work in the national capital
region. He went on to say the shortcomings are essentially the
same in Quebec and in Ontario.
[Translation]
This is what our present commissioner had to say about the
act. A look back reveals that his predecessors shared a similar
point of view. Former commissioner D'Iberville Fortier said:
``It seems to me that we are clearly not at the point where we can
claim to have translated the act into action in a manner that is
judicious, consistent and unequivocal''.
In a similar vein, former commissioner Max Yalden accused
the government of being inconsistent, unimaginative and
indiscriminate in its implementation of the act.
[English]
The first Commissioner of Official Languages, Keith Spicer,
was often critical of the government's implementation of the
act. His 1991 report ``Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future''
clearly spelled out Canadians' view on the issue:
The view was often expressed that Canada's official languages policy has
contributed significantly to the current crisis, including animosity toward
Quebec and/or toward French. Frequently used terms describe bilingualism as
divisive and as breaking up the country.
An independent review of the application of the official languages policy is badly
needed to clear the air, with a view to ensuring that it is fair and sensible. Otherwise
there is risk that rising public dissatisfaction and misunderstanding will lead to
13197
rejection of the policy as a whole with irreparable damage to the principles of
linguistic equality in federal institutions.
One purpose of the review should be to make clear to Canadians the cost and
benefits of official languages policy and activities and explain far more clearly its
goals and methods. Such a review should evaluate public information efforts as
well as investigate all of the public's expressed concerns.
This recommendation, like all the others contained in the $25
million document, was ignored by the government of the day,
just as the Liberals continue to ignore the views of the thousands
of Canadians who took part in this process. Despite this lack of
government attention to the concerns expressed by Canadians,
that recommendation is as valid today as it was in June 1991.
The people intimately involved with the act, the
commissioners, say the act is not working as it should.
(1330 )
Other noted Canadians share this sentiment. In an interview
celebrating the 20th anniversary of the founding of the B and B
commission, nine of the commissioners talked about their
original work and how it had been implemented by the Official
Languages Act. Mrs. Gertrude Laing was less than
complimentary about the way the act had been implemented in
the public service. In discussing the wholesale creation of
bilingual positions and the massive second language training
program, Mrs. Laing said that they ``failed to respect
individuals' feelings and needs, fears and aspirations''.
On those same issues co-chairman Davidson Dutton
commented that it was ``two steps forward and one step back''.
Mr. Paul Lacoste, in discussing language of work, lamented the
decision not to follow the commission recommendation to set up
unilingual language work units and called the language of work
policy in the public service a failure.
Similarly Mr. J. B. Rudnyckyj regretted that the Official
Languages Act contained such weak provisions with respect to
Canada's ethnic minorities. All the commissioners were
disappointed that bilingual districts had never been proclaimed
as they were a key feature of the blueprint for equal partnership.
Gilles Lalande, deputy commissioner of official languages
from 1980 to 1985 and co-secretary of the B and B commission
also called the bilingual districts a cornerstone of language
reform but said the subject had received little more than lip
service and empty declarations of intent. He also said:
The language reform envisaged by the B and B commissioners never took
place.
Mr. Lalande was equally pessimistic about the act itself
saying:
Implementation of the act remains fragmentary and tentative.
He concluded by saying:
We have to admit that collectively we may have been overly ambitious and
taken the wrong tack. It is high time to get our priorities straight.
Other prominent Canadians have also questioned the validity
of the current act. Professors Denise Réume and Leslie Green in
their 1991 article published in ``The Network on the
Constitution'' wrote:
The main goal of any language policy should be to promote linguistic justice.
Nothing in the conventional analysis even addresses this question.
Noted Concordia University sociologist Hubert Guindon
stated in a 1978 article: ``No matter how lofty its ideals, the
legacy of the political disaster created by'' the federal ``official
language policy is there for everyone to see''. According to
Professor Guindon, the act hinders rather than facilitates the
changes needed as a consequence of the social modernization of
the Quebecois. It contributes to a climate of ambiguity for
immigrants in Quebec and uncertainty for the large private
corporate sector in Quebec.
We have seen that several language commissioners,
bureaucrats and academics believe the act has failed. If we
return to the Spicer forum for a minute we could also see that
average Canadians hold similar views. I have heard that
firsthand in the west.
Here are a few short quotes from that 1991 report:
Pierre Trudeau's vision of a multicultural and bilingual society for Canada
was a noble one, but it is apparent now that it simply will not work.
An hon. member: Hogwash.
Mr. Ringma: ``Bilingualism has failed''. It continues:
Two languages should be an asset, but administration of ``official
bilingualism'' has taken a potentially wonderful and unifying asset and made it
hurtful and divisive.
I could go on with many more such quotes expressed by
average Canadians, but I believe this sampling gives a very good
picture of the public's attitude toward the act.
If I heard ``hogwash'' from across the way, referring to what
ordinary people are saying, I resent it. Canadians should have
the right to express their opinion, especially on commissions
such as the Spicer commission.
Now that we have clearly established the shortcomings of the
act it is time to address the merits of the motion as it pertains to
reviewing the act.
(1335)
In his 1975 annual report on official languages,
Commissioner Spicer wrote:
But surely there is merit in keeping more meaningful accounts. Without
them, those dealing with language reform will have to continue waffling on the
recurring questions of costs-hearing, but being unable to contradict
convincingly such delicious polemical estimates-as $3 billion per year for
bilingualism.
13198
It would seem more sensible to pull the whole lot of linguistic items together, specify
the purpose for each, tote up the terrifying sum, add 10 per cent for integrated cost, then
publish and defend the thing as the high but necessary price for being Canadian.
Those words were written 20 years ago but have been ignored
ever since. I am not here to make any wild claims about the cost
of official languages because the truth is that I do not know the
cost. The truth is that no one knows the cost.
Why do we not know the cost? It is because the accounting
practices used for these programs have taken more twists and
turns than contestants in a Chubby Checker dance-a-thon.
Mr. Spicer knew this in 1975 and the government knows it
today but refuses to act. On two separate occasions I put motions
before the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages but
was turned down both times. That is why I am getting rid of
some of my frustration in proposing the motion originally put
forward by Jean-Robert Gauthier.
The people in this committee say that we have the numbers
from the commissioner and there is no need for verification.
However the truth is that the numbers are not verified in any
meaningful way. The commissioner gets the numbers from the
Treasury Board which he accepts at face value. Treasury Board
produces these numbers based on cost reports produced by all
departments and agencies.
The guidelines for producing the reports clearly state that
certain costs are not to be counted, such as the person years and
salaries of employees taking language training as well as those
of staff hired to replace the employees on language training.
They do not count those costs.
Treasury Board says that its books are open to the auditor
general, but if the books do not contain all the information it is
difficult to conduct a thorough audit. It must also be stated that
the auditor general has never turned his attention to the full
range of language policies and programs.
We know that in 1991 the auditor general looked at the
Translation Bureau, found many problems and concluded:
It became clear the Translation Bureau would have to undergo major changes
to correct the weaknesses we identified.
In 1993 a follow up audit was conducted and the following
conclusion was reached:
Despite these efforts, however, we note that significant weaknesses still exist.
We are particularly concerned about cost reduction.
This is but one small area of the official languages program.
After 26 years has not the time come to fully probe the entire
menagerie created by the Official Languages Act?
The only question that remains is: Who should carry out such
an important review? I have already stated that the official
languages committee has no desire to perform such a task. Nor
would it be the appropriate body as it is out of step with the
demographic and linguistic realities of Canada. It would also be
impractical to impose this duty on any parliamentary committee
as they are dominated by the Liberal government which I believe
is committed to the status quo.
My motion simply calls for the appointment of someone to
conduct a thorough and balanced review of the work done so far.
This someone should be the auditor general. The office of the
auditor general is highly respected by all Canadians. It is at
arm's length from Parliament and therefore free from political
interference. The auditor general is already on the payroll,
meaning there will be no extra cost to the taxpayer to conduct
this vital review.
(1340)
[Translation]
As indicated in the Reform Party's blue sheet, we support the
concept of official bilingualism. However, we do not approve
the way the act has been implemented during the past 26 years.
That act was never subjected to a complete review. This is
totally unacceptable to those who care about the linguistic
policy's integrity.
It should also be mentioned that the B and B commission
correctly pointed out that each province is the ultimate authority
on its own territory. Consequently, any future linguistic reform
should be conducted through the provincial authorities. The
Reform Party shares these views but, unfortunately, the
principle is not found in the act as such.
[English]
Over the past nearly 20 minutes I have illustrated the
shortcomings in the act as seen by official languages
commissioners, bureaucrats, academics and average Canadians.
I have stated logically why we must revisit the act and who
should carry out the review: the auditor general.
The issue of language has proven to be the subject of very
emotional and sometimes illogical debate in the House. We have
seen it directly within the year. It is regrettable as the issue is far
too important to be reduced to such a level of squabbling and
name calling. Therefore I call on all members of the House to be
cognizant of the sensitivity of the issue as they enter into debate
today and in the coming months.
I bring the motion forward in the hope of furthering open and
honest discussions on Canada's language policy. Partisanship
and ideology will do nothing to enhance a true exchange of
ideas.
13199
I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts and look
forward to hearing some intelligent and thought provoking
debate on the motion before the House.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to have the opportunity to speak to the motion presented
by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan.
[Translation]
The motion being debated today includes two proposals. The
first one is that the government should thoroughly assess the
way the Official Languages Act is applied in Canada, by
appointing an individual to carry out a detailed and balanced
review of the work done so far. The second proposal is that the
government should reaffirm Parliament's commitment to a just
and adequate policy on official languages. These are good
intentions, no doubt about that.
However, do we not already have all the required processes to
ensure that the act is properly applied and to see how it is
implemented? I listened carefully to the hon. member's speech.
It is true that the implementation of the Official Languages Act
could be improved. It is that aspect that we, parliamentarians,
should look at.
I heard about a number of flaws, but I did not hear anything
about the positive aspects, and that makes me feel
uncomfortable.
I also want to say that, from what I understood, the former MP,
now a senator, had proposed something very similar in terms of
assessing the way the act is applied across the country, from
coast to coast. He was interested in reviewing the application of
the act. So, I will discuss the topic from this perspective.
(1345)
[English]
Let me explain. A number of mechanisms are available today.
The Official Languages Act confers very clear responsibilities
and rather precise mandates on three federal departments with
respect to its application. These are the departments of justice,
treasury board and Canadian heritage.
The Department of Justice has special responsibilities in the
area of the administration of justice in both official languages
under the act. The act clearly stipulates that English and French
are the official languages of the federal courts and that either
language may be used by any person in any oral or written
proceedings.
The act further stipulates that the federal government is
required to use the official language chosen by the other parties
in a civil case to which it is a party before a federal court and that
any final decision, order or judgment issued by any federal court
must be made available simultaneously in both official
languages under the circumstances specified in the legislation.
These are fundamental rights which guarantee all Canadians,
whether they are English speaking or French speaking equal
access to justice. This access is reinforced by the fact that the
Official Languages Act requires all federal institutions,
including the federal courts, to comply with the provisions of
the act.
[Translation]
The second department with a specific mandate regarding
official languages is Treasury Board. It is responsible for
developing and co-ordinating the official language policies and
programs of our federal institutions.
Treasury Board's mandate covers all federal institutions,
including Crown corporations, and all agencies which have
obligations regarding official languages under any other federal
act. By virtue of the scope of its mandate under the Official
Languages Act, Treasury Board is a key player in the
management of the official languages program.
[English]
It is the responsibility of treasury board to ensure that federal
institutions respect official language obligations regarding
services to the public and the language of work with regard to
the language of services. Federal institutions are required to
provide services to the Canadian public in the official language
of its choice in those locations and under the circumstances
prescribed by the legislation.
Federal institutions have a further obligation to inform the
public of the availability of services in the official language of
its choice.
The official languages regulations adopted in 1991 identify
the circumstances under which federal institutions are required
to provide their services to and communicate with the public in
both official languages. These regulations are essential to the
application of the legislative framework enacted to ensure that
Canadians receive the services they require from federal
institutions in the official language of their choice.
[Translation]
In so-called bilingual regions, federal institutions must also
provide a work environment which promotes the use of both
official languages in the circumstances covered by the act. In
particular, the federal institutions in question must provide
bilingual human resources and central services, among others,
to their employees, and must provide them with the general and
common working tools in the language of their choice.
They must ensure that supervision is available to employees
in both official languages, when this will contribute to the
creation of a work environment promoting the use of both
official languages. These institutions must also ensure that
senior managers are functional in both official languages and
that general and common information technology tools can be
used in both official language. Lastly, federal institutions must
be able to provide a comparable level of service in either
13200
official language from one predominantly unilingual region to
another.
The third element of the program, the equal representation of
French speaking and English speaking Canadians, bears witness
to the commitment of the government and Parliament to official
languages.
(1350)
This commitment means that federal institutions must ensure
that their workforce reflects the presence of both linguistic
communities in the Canadian population. Under the terms of
this commitment, federal institutions must see to it that French
and English speaking Canadians alike have equal employment
and promotion opportunities.
[English]
It is the responsibility of treasury board to see to it that federal
institutions effectively fulfil their legal obligations under parts
IV, V and VI of the act and to report to Parliament annually on
the status of official languages within the federal institutions
covered by its mandate.
To this end, treasury board has been given the authority to
recommend regulations and to give effect to the provisions of
the act. It is also empowered to issue directives, to monitor and
to audit the general compliance of federal institutions with
official languages policies, directives and regulations. Treasury
board may also evaluate the effectiveness of policies and
programs of federal institutions and provide the public and
federal employees with information on these policies and
programs.
[Translation]
These are powers that the Treasury Board exercises every day
in one way or another. These powers enable the Treasury Board
to ensure not only that federal institutions fulfil their
obligations but also that Canadians receive the services they
need in the official language of their choice where prescribed by
law and that they have equal employment and promotion
opportunities in federal institutions.
The third federal department given specific responsibilities in
terms of official languages, which I mentioned earlier, is the
Department of Canadian Heritage. This department is
responsible for encouraging and promoting a co-ordinated
approach to the implementation by federal institutions of the
government's commitment to enhance the vitality of official
language minorities and to promote both French and English in
Canadian society.
I had so many things to say, but I am coming to the end of my
10 minutes. I would simply want to add that I have not yet
mentioned the fourth major player, the Commissioner of
Official Languages, who also plays a key role in this matter. The
Commissioner of Official Languages has the duty to ensure
recognition of the status of each of the official languages and
compliance with the spirit and intent of the act, in particular as
regards the advancement of French and English in Canadian
society.
Unfortunately, I must conclude my presentation. I had so
many things to say, but if some of my colleagues are interested
in my speech, I am ready to share it with them.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, let me start by restating the motion before us today,
for the benefit of those who are watching us: As the Official
Languages Act is 26 years old, it deem it important that the
government thoroughly assess the way the act is applied in the
country by appointing someone to carry out a detailed and
balanced review of the work done so far and reaffirm
Parliament's commitment to a just and adequate policy on
official languages.
The Bloc Quebecois will have no difficulty voting for this
motion. In fact, I requested almost exactly the same thing in a
speech I made in this House on October 3. Let us look at where
the need for this assessment comes from.
The Official Languages Act stems from the Royal
Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism set up by Prime
Minister Lester B. Pearson in 1963. The act was ultimately
passed in 1969 by the Trudeau government in response to the
sense of urgency felt at the time.
We will recall that the early 1960s were marked by the first
manifestations of the FLQ, which were symptoms of profound
discontent within Canada.
(1355)
In fact, in a preliminary report issued in February 1965, the B
and B Commission, as it was nicknamed in those days, stated
that measures were urgently required as Canada was undergoing
a major crisis.
According to a booklet published by the federal government
and entitled Official Languages Act in Brief, the objectives of
the act are as follows: first, to ensure respect for English and
French as the official languages of Canada, and equal status,
rights and privileges for these languages in federal institutions.
Second, to support the development of English and French
language minority communities and to encourage the
acceptance and use of both English and French in Canadian
society. Third, to set out the powers and duties of federal institutions in the area of official languages.
The document also points out that the provisions of the
Official Languages Act stem from the linguistic rights
guaranteed by the Constitution. So, the Official Languages Act
provides that Parliament and the federal courts must work in
both official languages; that the federal government must
provide its
13201
services in both official languages, based on certain conditions,
and that it is committed to achieving full and equal participation
of the two official linguistic groups. Since it was reviewed in
1988, the act also provides that the Minister of Heritage is
committed to enhancing the vitality of linguistic minority
communities, while also being responsible for co-ordinating the
efforts of the various departments toward the fulfilment of that
objective.
It is also important to take a look at the preamble of the
Official Languages Act. It says that the Constitution provides
that English and French are the official languages of Canada and
have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their
use in all institutions of the Parliament. It also provides that the
public can communicate with these federal institutions in either
official language; that public servants should have equal
opportunities to use the official language of their choice while
working; that English-speaking and French-speaking
Canadians should, without regard to their ethnic origin or first
language learned, have equal opportunities to obtain
employment in the institutions of the Parliament and
government of Canada; and, finally, that the federal government
is committed to enhancing the vitality of linguistic minority
communities.
Given all these good intentions, what is the situation, after
more than 25 years under the Official Languages Act? There are
a number of criteria that can help us determine the positive or
negative impact of this legislation, including assimilation rate,
education, income, availability of federal services in the
minority language and, finally, language of work of federal
employees.
The situation in Canada's francophone and Acadian
communities is certainly not as rosy as the official line would
have us believe. In fact, there is every indication that the
francophone community outside Quebec is being assimilated, is
losing ground where education is concerned, is getting poorer
and generally does not have access to the federal services to
which it is entitled in its own language. Furthermore, most
francophones in the federal public service have to work in
English. Warnings come regularly from spokespersons for these
communities and the Commissioner of Official Languages.
Apparently, to no avail.
Let us take a closer look at some of those criteria. First, the
assimilation rate. To calculate the assimilation rate, we take the
total number of persons who say their mother tongue is French
and subtract the number of persons who tell the census taker that
French is still the language spoken in the home.
According to information provided by Statistics Canada,
between 1971, the year of the first census that included
questions on language, and 1991, the year of the latest census,
the assimilation rate of francophones outside Quebec rose from
27 per cent to 34.8 per cent.
French is losing ground across the country, including in New
Brunswick, the only bilingual province, where the assimilation
rate is still 8.4 per cent.
(1400)
Of course, the trend is more dramatic in communities in
western Canada. In British Columbia, for instance, it was 71.8
per cent in the 1991 census; in Alberta, 64.4 per cent; in Ontario,
although the province has the largest francophone minority, the
assimilation rate was 36.7 per cent, an increase of ten points
over 1971.
In other words, English is spoken in the home by 71 per cent
of francophones living in British Columbia; 64 per cent in
Alberta; and 36.7 per cent of francophones in Ontario. It should
therefore come as no surprise that Bob Rae, the present Premier
of Ontario, said on CBC radio that, unfortunately, there were not
enough francophones in Ontario for the province to become
officially bilingual. Naturally, every effort was made to
assimilate them-we can see the results 26 years later.
Statistics on the level of education in francophone
communities are also alarming. Thirty per cent of the
francophone minority outside Quebec is considered illiterate. In
Ontario, the group for development stated recently that the level
of illiteracy among the province's francophones was 31 per cent,
compared with the figure of 17 per cent for its anglophones. We
should, however, perhaps not be surprised by these figures,
when all Canadian provinces officially prohibited teaching in
French for decades and when, despite the present constitution,
the many decisions by the Supreme Court and the many battles
waged by the country's francophones, the right to education in
French-
The Deputy Speaker: I remind you that you have about two
minutes left.
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, that is impossible. I was told I
had 20 minutes, like Mr. Ringma.
The Deputy Speaker: No, no. I am sorry. Speeches during
private members' business are 10 minutes in length.
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, no, I am supposed to have 20
minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Joliette has the floor
on a point of order.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, it is 20 minutes' speaking time, is it
not?
The Deputy Speaker: For the first speaker, and 10 minutes
for all other members.
Mr. Laurin: Yes. For the first speaker of each party.
The Deputy Speaker: No, no. For the first speaker.
13202
Mr. Laurin: For the first speaker who introduced the bill,
and then the others have 10 minutes?
The Deputy Speaker: Exactly.
Mr. Laurin: So, there is a mistake.
Mrs. Tremblay: Then, I will have to conclude, and that is
really unfortunate.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is most unfortunate that I have not had
the time to read all my speech and that I was misinformed. I
guess that is part of the procedure in this House and that, by now,
I should have known better.
Anyway, the important thing is to say that we will support the
motion of the hon. member for Nanaimo, because it is extremely
significant, since we have to recognize that bilingualism in
Canada is a failure. Now that multiculturalism has replaced
biculturalism and bilingualism, it is no wonder that there are no
longer any Canadians in Canada, but only Greeks, Japanese,
Chinese, Germans, Ukrainians and Quebecers, who will make
the right decision when the time comes.
So, I want to move the following amendment, seconded by the
hon. member for Joliette.
That Motion M-381 be amended by adding after the word ``languages'', the
following: ``and that the Act be strengthened and applied in full from coast to
coast to coast''.
The Deputy Speaker: The proposed amendment is in order.
(1405)
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise this afternoon and support the
motion put forward by my hon. colleague from
Nanaimo-Cowichan.
Twenty-five years ago the first Official Languages Act was
passed, as has been noted. Since that time we have never fully
reviewed its operation to see if this multibillion dollar ship is
taking us where we want to go.
In 1988 the act was revised incorporating three main
objectives: first, to ensure the equal status of the two official
languages; second, to support the development of official
language minority communities; and third, to set out the powers,
duties and functions of federal institutions in this area.
To ensure compliance with the spirit and intent of the act, a
commissioner of official languages has been appointed. His job
is to protect language rights of individuals and groups, evaluate
linguistic performance of federal institutions and monitor the
advancement of French and English. In other words, the
commissioner's mandate is to promote the act, not to evaluate
its effectiveness.
Unfortunately, the auditor general has not undertaken a
comprehensive review of the act during its entire 25 year
evolution. This is a serious flaw.
What we do have is a series of reports, studies and audits of
particular aspects of the act. Nobody has looked at the whole
thing. Even if problems are identified, no one has the mandate to
change aspects of it that are not working.
For example, in past annual reports the commissioner has
repeatedly criticized the failure of the government to
communicate the basic purpose of the act to the Canadian
people. In the words of the commissioner, this has resulted in
negative hearsay and durable falsehoods. Despite being over
two decades old, Canadians still do not even understand why the
act exists. Something is definitely wrong, but the commissioner
is not empowered to fix it.
The commissioner's 1993 annual report notes that the
Canadian solution to the co-existence of two dominant
languages is focused on individual rights rather than the
establishment of a territorial linguistic regime. This means the
intention of the act is to ensure Canadians can receive services
from federal institutions in the official language of their choice
regardless of where they happen to live.
During 1993 the office of the commissioner completed its
own study of individual choice versus territoriality in the
implementation of language rights. Again I quote: ``The study
concluded that Canada has struck its own balance between
individual rights and territoriality, and has done so as a function
of its own history and specific human needs''.
Despite the fact that the act is not supposed to be territorial in
nature, government services in both languages are not
universally available, only where there is significant demand
and where it is reasonable, logical and fair to do so. This makes
some sense but it does not meet the demands of individual
complainants who believe their rights to full services under the
act have been violated.
Each province implements the act differently. This means the
results are also measurably different in each province. Is this a
failure of the act or was this the original intention? If we do not
review the act nationwide, how do we know whether the overall
objectives are feasible or even desirable?
The 1993 report began with a quote from Montesquieu:
``Nothing is just merely because it forms part of the law; rather,
it should be law because it is just''. The Official Languages Act
is the law but if we do not examine it impartially and thoroughly
how can we know that it is just?
One example of a perceived failure illustrates this point.
Many minority official languages communities are upset
because they do not receive services of comparable quality to
those afforded to the majority. Perhaps this is neither realistic
nor affordable. Perhaps we should be looking at providing
services of adequate quality rather than comparable quality. No
13203
one is looking at alternative solutions to these problems. The
commissioner's role is to pursue the goal of comparable
services, not to question whether that goal is attainable.
(1410)
The Spicer commission studied Canadians' perceptions of the
Official Languages Act. One participant: ``Being able to speak
both English and French should be a worthwhile personal goal
for all citizens of Canada. It is also an achievable goal, if only
the politicians had the courage to admit that the language
policies they have been advocating for the past two decades
failed miserably and left the country deeply divided. It is time to
scrap the enforced bilingualism policy and heal the wounds''.
As my hon. colleague mentioned earlier, another participant
in the citizens' forum on Canada's future stated: ``Pierre
Trudeau's vision of a multicultural and bilingual society for
Canada was a noble one, but it is apparent now that it will simply
not work''.
We are certainly a more bilingual country than we were in
1969, but we are far from achieving the goals of the act and it has
been in operation for more than a generation. Surely if the act
was workable we would have met most, if not all, of the goals by
now.
The list of failures is long. We have failed to achieve equity in
the language of work in federal institutions. We have failed to
communicate the basic purpose of the act to Canadians. As a
result, the act does not enjoy universal support. As I already
stated, it has failed to provide comparable quality services to
minority official languages communities. It has failed to
establish universal access to services in the language of choice
resulting in territoriality playing a significant role.
After 25 years why has the official languages policy failed to
meet virtually all of its objectives? Without an independent
review of the fundamental principles, structure and
implementation regimes we will never know. We will merely
continue to add to the list of failures because questioning the
goals or the means of achieving them is beyond the mandate of
the commissioner.
Let us compare the Official Languages Act to a sailing ship
under Christopher Columbus. The office of the commissioner
has certain tasks to perform, such as investigating complaints,
auditing specific federal departments of compliance and
ensuring implementation of minority language education
programs. These are like the specific tasks of sailors to mend the
sails, scrub the decks or feed the crew.
Every once in a while the auditor general comes along and
performs an audit on a discreet part of the ship such as his 1991
audit of the translation bureau. This is like lowering a sailor over
the side of the ship to chip off a few barnacles rather than
checking the integrity of the hull. We fix one or two problems
with the sails, replace some lines and bail out the bilge, but no
one has looked at the whole ship. We are so concerned with the
day to day operations and studying the individual components
that no one has looked to see where the ship is going.
Columbus knew his mission was to get to the far east and he
fixed the little leaks along the way, but after two months under
sail he ended up in America instead. If we do not completely
review the act, how can we be sure we will achieve the stated
objectives? More important, how do we know our national
objectives have not changed?
Right now we do not even know if we are still going in the
right direction because we have not done one comprehensive
audit in 25 years. Remember, his sails were repaired regularly
but Christopher Columbus was not even in the right ocean, let
alone on course.
I urge all members to support this motion to conduct a
thorough review of the act. We may not all agree on where we
think the official languages ship should be headed, but an
independent auditor could make sure we are at least sailing in
the direction supported by the majority of the crew, in this case
the Canadian taxpayers who continue to foot the bill.
(1415)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter this debate on the
motion tabled in the House by the hon. member for
Nanaimo-Cowichan and, what is really surprising, supported
by a Bloc member, which indicates that the Bloc Quebecois will
vote for this motion.
Over the week-end, in New Brunswick, the Société nationale
des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick is holding
its annual assembly; as one of its members, I would have liked to
be there, but as the member of Parliament for
Madawaska-Victoria and co-chair of the joint committee on
official languages, I think it is even more important for me to
speak to this motion.
I will begin by recalling the history and the purposes of this
act. The original Official Languages Act was passed by the
Parliament of Canada in 1969, following the recommendations
made by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and
Biculturalism. The purpose of that act was to give French and
English equal status, non only in Parliament and before federal
courts, as was already guaranteed in section 133 of the
Constitution Act, 1867, but in the whole federal administration.
13204
[English]
In 1988 the Official Languages Act was thoroughly reviewed
and amended. The new act defers from the old one in that it not
only sets out the official languages right of the public but also
clearly spells out the duty of the federal institutions in respect to
these rights. It contains as well a solemn commitment by the
government to enhance the vitality of the English speaking and
the French speaking minority communities and to advance the
recognition and the use of English and French in Canadian
society at large.
We strongly believe that the Official Languages Act in its
present form contains a complete legislative framework which
is sufficient to ensure and to monitor the implementation of the
act in a manner that is efficient, fair and transparent.
The House will know that all federal government institutions,
departments, agencies and crown corporations are subject to the
act. The key departments entrusted with specific
responsibilities for the implementation of the act are treasury
board, Canadian heritage and justice.
However, the administration of the act does not stop with
federal government institutions. It is important to stress that the
commissioner of official languages, the federal court and the
standing joint parliamentary committee on official languages
also fulfil important functions.
Allow me to review briefly the roles of the key federal
institutions responsible for overseeing and reviewing the
implementation of the act.
The Official Languages Act entrusts the treasury board with
the responsibility for the co-ordination of the policies and
programs of the government in the area of communication with
and service to the public, the language of work within federal
institutions as well as the equitable participation of English
speaking Canadians and French speaking Canadians within
those institutions.
[Translation]
The President of the Treasury Board informs the House when
tabling his annual report.
[English]
It should be noted that the government on the
recommendation of the treasury board has put into place
regulations respecting service to the public in both languages.
The final provisions of these regulations came into force last
year.
Another key department under the act is that of the Minister of
Canadian Heritage, who is responsible for co-ordinating the
federal government's commitment with respect to the
enhancement of the vitality of official language minority
communities and the advancement of English and French.
Last summer in New Brunswick the Prime Minister and the
Minister of Canadian Heritage announced new initiatives,
including an accountability framework for the co-ordination of
government commitment to the enhancement of the vitality of
official language minority communities and the advancement of
English and French.
The Minister of Justice is the legal custodian of the act since
he retains general legislative responsibility for it.
[Translation]
The Minister of Justice has particular responsibilities in the
areas of drafting legislation and administering justice, in both
official languages, in federal courts as well as in criminal
prosecutions under the authority of the Solicitor general of
Canada.
(1420 )
[English]
We have already mentioned that the administration of the act
does not stop with federal government institutions. The act
provides for a linguistic ombudsman, independent of
government and reporting to Parliament, who is charged with
the duty of taking action to ensure that federal institutions
comply with the spirit and the intent of the act.
The commissioner of official languages is not a court. He
attempts to resolve issues relating to the application of the act
through a process of administrative mediation. Through his
annual and special reports to Parliament as well as his complaint
reports the commissioner ensures that Parliament, the
government and the public are kept well informed as to the
administration of the act.
The act also provides Canadians with the right to seek court
remedy. Pursuant to part X of the act the federal court may, if it
finds that a federal institution has failed to comply with the act,
grant an appropriate and just remedy.
Finally, I come to the role of the standing parliamentary
committee on official languages which is charged, in the words
of the act, with the duty to review on a permanent basis the
administration of the Official Languages Act, any regulation
and directive made under this act, and the reports of the
commissioner, President of the Treasury Board and Minister of
Canadian Heritage.
The committee has been very active in listening to the views
and concerns of Canadians on official language matters. Both
the commissioner of official languages and the Minister of
Canadian Heritage have recently appeared before the committee
as have a number of other ministers.
In my opinion the parliamentary committee is proving to be
an effective, open forum for Canadians concerns with the
implementation of the act.
13205
[Translation]
I would like to add something to the speech. The hon. member
who introduced the motion is a member of the Joint Committee
on Official Languages. At the beginning of his speech, a short
while ago, the hon. member said that his party, the Reform Party,
supports the principles of individual bilingualism. At the end of
his speech, he said that the Reform Party also supports the
principles of official bilingualism.
In the Committee on Official Languages the hon. member did
the same kind of flip-flop regarding the Official Languages Act,
as I will demonstrate. At the beginning of our proceedings, the
member made the following motion to the Committee: ``Be it
resolved that this committee endorse the recommendations
contained in the commissioner's report on service to the public
and further, that this committee encourage Treasury Board to
draw up an action plan to implement these recommendations in
as cost-effective and expedient a manner as possible, and that
Treasury Board officials be invited to appear before our
committee for the purpose of tabling their action plan at an early
date'', asking the committee to support unanimously the intent,
the report and the Official Languages Act.
One month ago, the same member presented another motion
where he proposed to abolish entirely the budgetary votes and
the operating budget of the Commissioner of Official
Languages.
This quite a turnaround. During the last Parliament, the
Committee on Official Languages held only ten meetings over a
two-year period. Since the beginning of our mandate, we have
had 30 meetings in one year. Why? Because our government is
keen on seeing justice done to both linguistic communities in
Canada. And the main supporter of this justice and the primary
promoter of the Official Languages Act is the Right Hon. Prime
Minister.
If the Reform Party and the Bloc have doubts about that and
are not sure that Canadians throughout the country support the
Official Languages Act, they only have to look at the recent
Gallup poll. It says it all.
The Deputy Speaker: The next time we debate this issue, it
will be the Bloc Quebecois's turn to speak. The hour reserved for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the
bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
It being 2.25 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m.
on Monday.
(The House adjourned at 2.25 p.m.)